KaveriKumari2: Done!

2025-11-06T05:26:54Z

Done!

New page

{{Short description|Indian LGBT Rights Case Law}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2023}}
{{Use Indian English|date=August 2023}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police
| judges = C. K. Abdul Rehim {{Abbr|CJ.|Chief Justice}} and R. Narayana Pisharadi {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}
| keywords = [[Cohabitation|Cohabitation Rights]], [[Queer|Queer Relationships]]
| opinions = The separating the adults in a consensual relationship is a violation of the Constitutional right, regardless of their [[sexual orientation]].
| decision by = C. K. Abdul Rehim {{Abbr|CJ.|Chief Justice}} and R. Narayana Pisharadi {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}
| number of judges = 2
| court = [[Kerala High Court]]
| citations = {{URL|1=https://hckinfo.kerala.gov.in/digicourt/citation/215800003722018_1.pdf|2={{Abbr|W. P. (CRL) No.|Writ Petition (Criminal) Number}} 372 of 2018}}
| date decided = 24 September 2018
| full name = Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}
}}

'''Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}''' '''(2018)''' is case where [[Kerala High Court]] held that separating the adults in a consensual relationship is a violation of the Constitutional right, regardless of their [[sexual orientation]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite court|litigants=Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}|court=[[Kerala High Court]]|opinion={{Abbr|W. P. (Crl.) No.|Writ Petition (Criminal) Number}} 372 of 2018|date=24 September 2018|url=https://hckinfo.kerala.gov.in/digicourt/citation/215800003722018_1.pdf}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Ameerudheen |first=T. A. |title=Kerala lesbian couple that got court reprieve say they'll show society why its prejudices are wrong |url=https://scroll.in/article/895840/kerala-lesbian-couple-that-got-court-reprieve-say-theyll-show-society-why-its-prejudices-are-wrong |access-date=2022-10-08 |website=Scroll.in |date=26 September 2018 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |agency=TNN|date=Sep 25, 2018 |title=Kerala high court lets lesbian couple live together {{!}} Kochi News - Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/kerala-hc-lets-lesbian-couple-live-together/articleshow/65943234.cms |access-date=2022-10-08 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref>

The [[Supreme Court of India]] acknowledged this case in its publication titled "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community" as one of the [[High courts of India|High Court]] judgments that effectively addressed the difficulties and obstacles experienced by queer individuals within the justice system due to their systemic marginalization.<ref name=":02">{{Citation |last=Supreme Court of India |title=Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community |url=https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s388ef51f0bf911e452e8dbb1d807a81ab/uploads/2023/05/2023050154.pdf |pages=25 |publication-date=26 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602010134/https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s388ef51f0bf911e452e8dbb1d807a81ab/uploads/2023/05/2023050154.pdf |publisher=Supreme Court of India |archive-date=2 June 2023 |author-link=Supreme Court of India}}</ref>

== Background ==
The petitioner, Sreeja, a 40-year-old woman residing in [[Kollam]], India, is engaged in a same-sex consensual relationship with the alleged detainee, Aruna, a 24-year-old woman. On August 13, 2018, Aruna left her parental home to live with Sreeja. Subsequently, Aruna's mother filed a missing person's complaint for Aruna with the sub-inspector of police in Parassala. Following this, the police took Aruna into custody and presented her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court of Neyyattinkara on August 14, 2018. The magistrate ordered Aruna's release.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

However, Aruna's parents purportedly took her into custody again after allegedly assaulting Sreeja. Aruna informed Sreeja that her parents had admitted her to the Government Mental Health Center at Peroorkada. When Sreeja visited Aruna at the hospital, Aruna expressed her willingness to leave with Sreeja. Nonetheless, the hospital authorities insisted on the presentation of a court order for her release along with Aruna. In light of these circumstances, Sreeja filed a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to command the production of Aruna and secure her freedom.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

== Proceedings ==
In response to the court's notification, both Aruna and her parents appeared before the bench. During the proceedings, Aruna openly acknowledged her relationship with Sreeja and their mutual decision to live together. Aruna emphatically expressed her strong desire to accompany Sreeja to Sreeja's residence in West Kallada, Kollam. Aruna firmly stated her refusal to return to her parental home alongside her parents. Aruna's account highlighted that she believes her parents are unlawfully detaining her, and she was taken to the Government Mental Health Center in Peroorkada despite being in a sound mental state.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

== Opinion of the Court ==
The bench drew upon the judgment of the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] in ''Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018)'', wherein it was observed that the court cannot assume the role of [[parens patriae]] and curtail the liberty of an individual who has reached the age of majority.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Indulia |first=Bhumika |date=2018-10-20 |title=Live-in relationship of a lesbian couple is not violative of any law and is not a crime |url=https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/10/20/live-in-relationship-of-a-lesbian-couple-is-not-violative-of-any-law-and-is-not-a-crime/ |access-date=2023-08-16 |website=SCC Blog |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite court|litigants=Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas|opinion=Contempt Petition (Civil) Number 1606 of 2017|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|date=5 January 2018|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/24291/24291_2017_Order_05-Jan-2018.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240114153850/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/24291/24291_2017_Order_05-Jan-2018.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2024-01-14}}</ref>

Similarly, the bench referred to the judgment of the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] in ''Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018)'', which firmly established that even if the parties are not legally competent to marry, they possess the right to cohabit even without formal wedlock.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":13">{{Cite court|litigants=Nandakumar v. State of Kerala|opinion=2018 INSC 383|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|date=20 April 2018|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/15646/15646_2017_Order_20-Apr-2018.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240114160803/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/15646/15646_2017_Order_20-Apr-2018.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2024-01-14}}</ref> The bench also highlighted the recognition of 'live-in relationships' by the [[Parliament of India]] under the provisions of the [[Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005|Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005]].<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3" />

Furthermore, the bench cited [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]]'s decision in ''[[Hadiya case|Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018)]]'', which emphasized the court's role in habeas corpus petitions to ascertain the independent choice of the detainee and to exercise caution in avoiding assessments of partner suitability for marital life.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":14">{{Cite court|litigants=Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.|opinion=2018 INSC 222|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|date=08 March 2018|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/19702/19702_2017_Judgement_08-Mar-2018.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240112115421/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/19702/19702_2017_Judgement_08-Mar-2018.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2024-01-12}}</ref> The Bench noted the application of the cited precedents by the Kerala High Court in ''Mohammed Riyad v. State Police Chief (2018)'', wherein it was ruled that there's no requirement for the court to scrutinize the legality of the petitioner's relationship with the alleged detainee.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3" />

Finally, the Bench noted the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]]'s remarks in the case of ''[[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]'', where the Supreme Court emphasized that discriminating based on sexual orientation infringes upon the fundamental right, and asserted that constitutional morality should not be compromised for social morality.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3" />

The bench held that the cohabiting relationship between Sreeja and Aruna does not contravene any legal provisions or amount to a criminal offense, and abstaining from exercising the court's jurisdiction would risk the infringement of Constitutional rights. Therefore, the bench exercised its jurisdiction by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, thereby granting Aruna the freedom to be with Sreeja according to her wishes.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3" />

== Impact ==
''Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police'' is the first Indian case concerning same-sex relationships after the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]]'s decriminalization of homosexuality in ''[[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]'', which saw its ruling issued on the 17th day following the Navtej Singh Johar verdict.<ref name=":1" />

The Supreme Court of India acknowledged this case in its publication "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," recognizing it as a significant High Court judgment that effectively addresses the difficulties encountered by marginalized queer individuals while navigating the justice system due to systemic marginalization. The publication highlighted the High Court's emphasis on women's consent and adulthood, asserting that it should not assume the role of parens patriae as long as individuals' choices are preserved. Additionally, the publication emphasized the High Court's stance that a 'live-in relationship' between two women is neither criminal nor illegal.<ref name=":02" />

== See also ==

* [[LGBT rights in India]]
* [[Adhila Nasarin v. State Commissioner of Police (2022)]]
* [[Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha|Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha (2020)]]
* [[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}{{LGBT Rights Case Law in India|state=expanded}}{{LGBT in India|state=collapsed}}

[[Category:High courts of India cases]]
[[Category:Indian LGBTQ rights case law]]
[[Category:LGBTQ rights in India]]
[[Category:2018 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:2018 in Indian law]]
[[Category:2018 in case law]]

Sreeja S. v. Commissioner of Police - Revision history

KaveriKumari2: Done!