The Madras High Court on Friday suggested that the Tamil Nadu government can consider recognising a ‘Deed of Familial Association’ entered into between LGBTQIA+ couples so that they can live with some degree of protection and without being disturbed or harassed.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said the government could consider his suggestion and incorporate it in a new policy being framed for the LGBTQIA+ community. He also expected the government to come up with a procedure for registration of such deeds, besides defining their scope.
“If that is done, the State will be able to give its stamp of approval to persons who are in a relationship in the community and to a great extent, this will enhance the status of such persons in society,” the judge wrote, after advocate B.S. Ajeetha proposed the idea of recognising such deeds.
Senior Counsel Jayna Kothari as well as advocate S. Manuraj, representing the LGBTQIA+ community, supported the idea, and said a State’s approval for such deeds would certainly protect the right of the people belonging to the community to be in a live-in relationship, and prevent their harassment.
After hearing them, the judge said the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty’s case had laid down a law that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 could not be read in a gender-neutral manner and in a way that would allow queer couples to marry under the provisions of that Act.
The verdict also denied the right to adoption to unmarried couples and ruled that transgender and intersex persons could marry under the Special Marriage Act as long as such marriage was heterosexual. At the same time, the apex court recognised the right of choice of two persons to have a relationship.
“In view of the same, such persons must have protection to live in society without being disturbed or harassed. For that purpose, the Deed of Familial Association will at least give some respect and status to such relationship,” Justice Venkatesh said, and accepted the idea of the State recognising such deeds.
The judge recorded the submission of Ms. Ajeetha, representing her client J. Prasanna, that the purpose of the deed could be confined to prevention of harassment/violence/ill-treatment by society or biological families and also discrimination that could impact gainful employment, housing and assimilation in society.
“The Deed of Familial Association cannot go beyond its purpose and seek for any further status in the light of the majority judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Supriyo’s case,” she told the judge, and pointed out that such a deed between two individuals was not barred under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
