Latest JudgementConstitution of India

MA v. Superintendent of Police, 2025

The Recognition of same-sex relationships as familial units and condemnation of police inaction in protecting LGBTQIA+ rights.

Madras High Court·7 June 2025

Court

Madras High Court

Date of Decision

7 June 2025

Judges

Justice G.R. Swaminathan ⦁ Justice V. Lakshminarayan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 21 of the Constitution of India Yogyakarta Principles – International human rights standards on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

Facts of the Case

A habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner, a woman in a same-sex relationship, alleging that her partner (the detenu) was being forcibly detained by her family.
The detenu appeared in court and confirmed that she had been beaten, confined, and subjected to rituals to “correct” her sexual orientation.
The detenu expressed her desire to return to the petitioner and not with her family.
The mother of the detenu opposed the relationship, alleging drug use and moral corruption.

Whether a same-sex couple can be recognized as a “family” in law?
Whether police failure to act on complaints of illegal detention violates constitutional protections?
Whether courts can issue mandamus to protect LGBTQIA+ individuals' liberty against familial coercion?

The Court held that marriage is not the only basis for forming a family. The idea of “chosen family” is valid and legally acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.
Quoting Supreme Court’s decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, the court affirmed that even if same-sex marriage is not legalized, such couples can still form families.
The detenu, being a major, had the right to cohabit with a partner of her choice under Article 21.
The Court censured the police for their failure to act on SOS calls and representations.
A continuing mandamus was issued to ensure that police protection is provided to the petitioner and the detenu if needed.

A same-sex couple can constitute a “family”, and personal liberty of adults in such relationships must be protected by the state.
The police are duty-bound to respond promptly and sensitively to grievances from the LGBTQIA+ community.
The petition was closed, and the detenu’s family was restrained from interfering in her personal autonomy.

The Court took a progressive view of family structures, extending legal recognition beyond heteronormative models.
The judgment emphasized the evolution of legal understanding post-NALSA and Navtej Singh Johar, incorporating international human rights norms like the Yogyakarta Principles.
The judges expressed discomfort with the term “queer”, critiquing its linguistic implications and advocating for normalization of non-heterosexual identities.
The ruling strengthens the jurisprudence on bodily autonomy, adult choice, and civil unions, and further underlines the role of state accountability.
It also points to a systemic gap in the police’s sensitivity and responsiveness in handling LGBTQIA+ cases.