Category: RIGHTS

Burkina Faso’s military has introduced a ban on homosexual acts, making the country the latest African state to increase its crackdown on same-sex relationships, despite clear opposition from Western countries. Although homosexuality was frowned upon in the socially conservative West African state, it was not officially banned until now.

Burkina Faso makes gay ban into law: dramatic change in military-ruled social policy

This decision represents an important step in the context of the harsh policies pursued by the military authorities since they came to power. The ban on homosexual relations has caused widespread public outcry both domestically and internationally, highlighting a significant change in Burkina Faso’s social and legal policies. The introduction of this law reflects a growing trend towards increased control and suppression of alternative forms of sexual orientation and gender identity in the region.

Justice Minister Edasso Rodrigue Bayala announced that the military junta government had approved a bill that would make homosexual relations a criminal offense, but declined to reveal details. Since a military coup in 2022 that brought the military to power, Burkina Faso has significantly reduced its ties with France, the former colonial power, and shifted its policy towards Russia.

Russia decriminalized homosexual acts in 1993, but under President Vladimir Putin the government has stepped up its crackdown on the LGBTQ community, introducing bans on what it defines as “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.”

Burkina Faso’s decision to criminalize homosexual relations is linked to a review of marriage laws. The proposed law, which must be approved by the military-controlled parliament and approved by junta chief Ibrahim Traoré, would only recognize marriages based on religious and traditional norms.

“From now on, homosexual relations and related practices will be prosecuted by law,” AFP quoted the justice minister as saying. Captain Ibrahim Traoré took power in September 2022, ousting the previous military leader, Lt. Col. Paul-Henri Damibou, whom he accused of failing to effectively fight the Islamist insurgency active in Burkina Faso since 2015.

Burkina Faso is now one of 22 of 54 African countries where same-sex relationships are not a crime. Unlike many former British colonies where laws against homosexuality were inherited after independence, the country did not adopt such rules after gaining independence from France in 1960.

In Burkina Faso, approximately 64% of the population is Muslim, while Christians make up 26%. The remaining 10% of the population adhere to traditional beliefs or are non-religious.

Africa at the epicenter of repression: Uganda introduces the death penalty for homosexual relations, Cameroon and Ghana also crack down on the LGBTQ community

In recent years, a number of African countries have tightened their measures against the LGBTQ community. Uganda, for example, recently passed laws increasing repression of the group, despite strong condemnation from local human rights groups and international authorities.

In May, the country’s Constitutional Court approved harsh amendments to the law providing for the death penalty for “serious cases of homosexuality.” These cases include same-sex relationships with minors or contracting incurable diseases such as HIV.

Activists intend to appeal this decision. In response to the new law, the World Bank suspended new loans to President Yoweri Museveni’s government, and the United States limited preferential access to American markets for Ugandan goods.

President Museveni has defended the new law, saying it strengthens traditional family values ​​and stresses that Uganda will not allow the West to impose its norms. In Cameroon, the president’s daughter, Brenda Biya, is discussing her gay confession, which has caused mixed reactions. Living outside the country, Brenda hopes that her openness can influence the revision of the law that prohibits same-sex relationships in Cameroon.

Since 1982, Cameroon has been ruled with a strong hand by 91-year-old President Paul Biya. In February, Ghana’s parliament approved a strict new law that would impose up to three years in prison for those found to be members of the LGBTQ+ community.

However, President Nana Akufo-Addo has yet to sign the law, saying he will wait for the court’s verdict on its constitutionality. The Treasury has warned that if the legislation is passed, Ghana risks losing $3.8bn (£3bn) in World Bank funding over the next five to six years.

Ghana faces a deep economic crisis and received significant financial support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) last year.

In recent months, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people have come under serious threat in multiple countries as populist and authoritarian governments have passed brutal laws aimed at restricting these rights.

Limitation of LGBT rights in world politics: how laws under the pretext of protecting children threaten fundamental freedoms

Countries such as Uganda, Ghana, Iraq, Russia, Hungary and the United States have made attempts to restrict the fundamental freedoms of LGBT people, including freedom of expression, association and assembly. They have justified these actions by arguing that the presence of LGBT people in the public sphere poses a threat to children, misusing child protection rhetoric to suppress fundamental human rights.

This outdated and offensive stereotype harms LGBT people by demonizing them in the public consciousness and denying them basic rights. It also harms all children, who are deliberately kept in the dark about important topics such as family diversity, current events, and comprehensive sexuality education. However, most of all, these laws harm LGBT children by making them feel isolated and without examples of how they can blossom in the future.

Numerous laws supposedly aimed at protecting children turn out to be extremely cruel in reality. In 2023, Uganda passed an anti-homosexuality bill under the guise of “protecting children and youth.” However, this law does nothing to address the real problems of Ugandan children, such as high levels of poverty, child labor and limited access to education and healthcare. Instead, he uses this excuse to invade the privacy of LGBT adults.

This included punishing same-sex relationships between adults with life imprisonment, introducing the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”, and criminalizing LGBT propaganda, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The bill passed by the Ghanaian Parliament also claims to “provide protection and support for children” but contains extremely repressive measures. The bill would criminalize LGBT rights campaigns that allegedly target children, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. It also goes much further, banning the creation and support of LGBT organizations and, in particularly violent cases, punishing the simple fact of identifying as LGBT.

Russia, which many years ago banned any positive or neutral depiction of LGBT people for children, later extended this ban to all public life, effectively banning any recognition of LGBT people and their rights. These laws have been used to intimidate, harass, and punish LGBT people and organizations, encouraging discrimination. They have also denied LGBT children access to educational and health services, harming their mental health and well-being. The situation worsened in 2024 when the Russian Supreme Court declared LGBT activism “extremist,” imposing prison sentences and other penalties for belonging to an LGBT organization.

Other countries have followed a similar path. Hungary has stepped up efforts to limit LGBT portrayals in the media, passing a law banning LGBT depictions in educational materials and television programs aimed at youth. In 2024, absurd new rules were introduced regulating where and how toys such as rainbow blocks could be sold.

Legislative Barriers: The Impact of Anti-LGBT Laws on Mental Health and Children’s Rights in the United States

In the United States, lawmakers also argue that they are protecting children by passing laws that make life more difficult for children. Like Russia or Hungary, seven states impose restrictions or outright bans on discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in school curricula, and four more limit whether and how same-sex relationships can be discussed in school textbooks. These laws, justified as protection for children, limit youth’s access to information about different sexual orientations and gender identities, ignoring the possible negative consequences of isolation and invisibility for young people who identify or will identify as LGBT.

Many other laws are passed under the guise of protecting cisgender, heterosexual youth, but they unfairly target and stigmatize transgender children. These laws deny transgender children access to sports, prohibit them from participating in related educational institutions, and notify their family members of their status. Nearly half of U.S. states prohibit transgender children from receiving health care that confirms their gender identity, a vital aid for reducing gender dysphoria and improving comfort in their own bodies. These bans are aimed solely at children, who may change their views in the future, without paying enough attention to those children and adults for whom access to this help is critical and whose life path becomes much more difficult and painful without it.

Thousands of LGBT youth and their families are testifying directly to legislators about the immediate and obvious harm these bills cause. These claims are supported by data: a 2023 Trevor Project survey found that 71 percent of LGBT youth surveyed and 86 percent of transgender and non-binary youth surveyed reported that laws restricting their rights had a negative impact on their mental health. Despite children’s clear messages of injustice and stigma, legislators continue to ignore their voices.

What would laws and policies look like if we truly considered the needs of all children, including LGBT children? These needs include security, privacy, access to healthcare, education and a sense of belonging. If governments prioritize these aspects, laws would aim to create an inclusive environment where every child could feel protected and respected, without fear of discrimination or stigmatization.

One of the fundamental principles of international human rights law is to look out for the best interests of the child—not only those who conform to traditional gender and sexual expectations, but also LGBT children. Viewed in this broad context, many recent laws and policies can be characterized as either insufficient or outright discriminatory.

LGBT children have the right to the same opportunities and protections as their peers who conform to traditional gender and sexuality norms. Governments must ensure their well-being by developing inclusive educational programs, providing adequate resources and support, and ensuring access to high-quality health services. Support and acceptance of LGBT children helps overcome discriminatory barriers and helps create a society in which all children receive care tailored to their individual needs.

Safeguarding the Rights of LGBT+ Students in sports is an important and relevant topic in modern society. In recent years, many efforts have been made to guarantee equal opportunities for all students, irrespective of their gender identity or sexual orientation. However, despite these efforts, LGBT+ students continue to face discrimination and barriers in the sporting sector.

Inclusion in sports: rights and protection of LGBT+ students

One of the key aspects of safeguarding the Rights of LGBT+ Students in sport is ensuring their right to compete on an equal basis with other students. Certain countries and states have enacted laws that prevent transgender students from joining sports teams that align with their gender identity. These laws  have sparked considerable controversy and criticism from human rights activists, who argue that such measures are discriminatory and infringe upon basic human rights. An example of a progressive approach to solving this problem is the policy put forward by the Biden administration in the United States. The new rule, set to take effect in August 2024, aims to expand the civil rights of LGBT+ students under  Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in educational institutions.The rule includes broadening the definition of sexual harassment nd providing additional protections for victims, as well as  safeguarding the Rights of LGBT+ Students to participate in sporting events on an equal basis with other students.

But the new rule faces substantial legal hurdles from more than 20 Republican-controlled states. They have filed at least seven lawsuits against the new policy, arguing that it undermines the existing opportunities for women and girls created by Title IX over the past 50 years. Attorneys general in those states argue that the new rule creates opportunities for transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports teams, which they say is unfair.

Despite these legal battles, safeguarding the Rights of LGBT+ Students in sport remains a priority for human rights activists and progressive politicians. They insist that each student, regardless of gender identity, should be able to participate in sporting activities without fear of discrimination or bias. This not only promotes an inclusive and equitable environment, but also helps LGBT+ students feel accepted and supported in their educational institutions.

Breaking Barriers: The Contribution of LGBT+ Athletes to Modern Sport

In the world of sports, there are many famous athletes who have openly declared their belonging to the LGBT+ community.  Their bravery and resolve not only aids in breaking stereotypes, but also opens doors for future generations.

One of the most famous LGBT+ athletes is Billie Jean King, a legendary tennis player who came out as gay in 1981. King, winner of 39 Grand Slam titles, is a symbol of the fight for equality in sport. She actively promoted the rights of women and LGBT+ communities, founding the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) and the National Women’s Soccer League (NWFL).

Another outstanding athlete is Greg Louganis, a four-time Olympic champion in diving. In 1995, he publicly announced his homosexuality and HIV diagnosis, which caused great resonance in the sports community. Louganis continues to actively fight for the rights of LGBT+ people, speaking at various forums and conferences.

Megan Rapinoe, captain of the US women’s soccer team, has also come out as gay. She is one of the most influential figures in modern sports, not only for her athletic achievements, but also for her active stance in the fight for equality. Rapinoe actively advocates for the rights of women and LGBT+ people, as well as against racial discrimination.

Another notable athlete is Gus Kenworthy, an Olympic freestyle skier who came out as gay in 2015. His recognition has inspired many young athletes to accept their identity. Kenworthy continues to be active in LGBT+ events and promotes inclusivity in sport.

These athletes, and many others who are openly LGBT+, play an important role in breaking down barriers and stereotypes. Their courage and determination serve as an inspiration to millions of people around the world, demonstrating that sport can be inclusive and equitable for all.

The US State Department noted that the recently approved legislation by the Iraqi parliament that makes something a criminal offense  same-sex relationships represents a significant challenge to human rights and freedoms. He also stressed that the law could weaken Iraq’s attractiveness to foreign investors.

International concern: criticism of the new LGBT law in Iraq by the European Union and the United States

The European Union and the United States have expressed deep concern over a recently enacted legislation by the Iraqi parliament that bans same-sex relationships. The document was approved by the majority of Iraqi deputies, who justified its need for the “protection of religious values.” This   decision sparked intense debate and raised a wave of criticism both from the international community and within the country.

In their statements, the European Union and the United States emphasized that such a law contradicts  global human rights standards and individual freedoms. They noted that it poses a serious threat to the basic principles of tolerance, equality and non-discrimination, which must be protected in every society.

Despite this, Iraqi authorities support the law, considering it necessary to maintain traditional values and religious harmony in the country. However, in light of the strong reaction from the international community, the future of this law and its impact on Iraqi society remains the subject of intense discussion and debate.

Under the new law, same-sex relations carry imprisonment terms varying between 10 and 15 years as well as a minimum seven-year sentence for “homosexual propaganda” or prostitution.

The US State Department warned that the law could discourage foreign investors, such as “global enterprises have already emphasized that such  discrimination may have adverse effects on business and economic development.”

The fight for LGBT rights: criminalization of same-sex relationships and challenges in the international arena

According to information from the non-profit project Our World in Data, same-sex sexual relations are illegal in more than more than 60 nations globally.

The prohibition of consensual same-sex sexual activity continues to be an issue in numerous countries across the globe, prompting apprehension from the global community and human rights groups.  Despite widespread recognition of LGBT rights and promotion of equality in some regions, there are a significant number of states where such relationships remain taboo and criminalized.

This has serious consequences not only for LGBT communities themselves, but also for society as a whole. The criminalization of same-sex relationships leads to systematic breaches of human rights and liberties, as well as an increase in the level of stigma and discrimination. Moreover, it prevents the development of an open and inclusive society where everyone can be accepted and respected irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In light of international attention to human rights and equality, nations where same-sex relationships are criminalized are facing increasing pressure to change their policies and recognize LGBT rights. This causes debate and discussion both within countries and internationally.

However, the path to changing legislation and cultural attitudes varies from country to country and often requires time and effort to achieve real change. Human rights organizations and activists continue to work locally and internationally to raise awareness of this issue and promote respect and protection of the rights of the LGBT community around the world.

Greece is preparing to legalize same-sex marriage, but without granting the right to parenthood through surrogacy.

Surrogacy: Greece stays strict on LGBT couples 

In Greece, the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage caused controversy in society even before the government introduced a bill on the issue. Some see it as a move towards greater equality, while others see it as an attack on traditional family values. Penny and her partner want to get married and have children, but they don’t seem to be given access to surrogacy or other methods of reproductive assistance. Their only option would be adoption.

Penny Moisiadouemphasizes that adoption is a noble act. She expresses her support for adoption, but under certain circumstances. If she were single and unable to have a child of her own, she would consider adoption. However, since she has a partner, they have the opportunity to have their own child. She questions why such discrimination exists. According to her, when getting married, both the procedure and the mentality of others should change. However, she is surprised that despite the marriage, she was deprived of this right to raise a child, which she had before.

The ban on surrogacy will also apply to same-sex male couples who wish to have children. This means that they will not be able to turn to surrogate mothers to become parents. However, if they decide to use the services of a surrogate abroad, the child will still be recognized in Greece. Konstantinos Pantos, an obstetrician-gynecologist and head of the Hellenic Society of Reproductive Medicine, expressed the opinion that the state should take clear and reasonable steps in this situation.

He emphasizes the importance of following the laws and regulations in this matter, rather than trying to circumvent them. Pantos notes that some married lesbian women are seeking ways to legally have children. For example, they may decide to divorce, go to a reproductive center and give birth to a child as a single woman, after which it is possible to remarry. It calls for legal and ethical discussions of these issues to find solutions that meet all sides of the issue.

Euronews’ Fay Dulgheri says the government is committed to promoting marriage equality in line with election promises to eliminate discrimination. There are fierce debates on this topic in society, where participants discuss the political, social, ethical and legal aspects of this problem.

LGBT and surrogacy: differences in laws between countries

Surrogacy and its status for LGBT couples vary depending on the laws of different countries. In some countries, such as the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Greece, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and others, surrogacy is allowed and available to LGBT couples. In the US, for example, surrogacy laws vary from state to state, and some states allow surrogacy for LGBT couples. Canada also has legislation allowing surrogacy for LGBT couples. In the UK, Greece, Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland, surrogacy laws also take into account the needs of LGBT families. However, it should be remembered that each country has its own specific legislation, and a detailed study of the relevant rules and procedures for LGBT couples wishing to use surrogacy is required.

The Lira bookstore chain was fined 12 million forints. This fine was imposed due to the sale of Alice Osman’s comic book “Heartstopper”, which tells the story of the romantic relationship of two young men.

Heartstopper сomics: Lira fined for violating Hungarian laws

Recorded in the history of the Hungarian book trade, a fine of 12 million forints, equivalent to approximately 32,000 euros, was imposed on the Lira bookstore chain for selling books with homosexual content in an “inappropriate form” – without a clear plastic wrapper. Lira, the main competitor of state-owned Libri, faced such a fine for the first time in its history. The object of the dispute was Alice Osman’s comic book “Heartstopper”, which tells about the romantic relationship of two young men..

According to Hungarian law, books with content considered unsuitable for children must be packaged in transparent film to prevent access to the content by minors. However, Lira broke this rule by selling the “Heartstopper” comic without such packaging. As a result, they were fined a record amount, causing outrage and controversy in the community.

According to Cristiana Nyari, Líra’s creative director, there are many ambiguities in the Child Protection Act, making it difficult for retailers to comply if they do not understand what is required of them. “One can argue about what books should be provided to children aged 3-4 years, whether they should contain sexuality or not. But this decision should be made by the parents, as previously stated by the state. However, now the state is trying to interfere in everything. It is absolutely unacceptable for teenagers aged 16 or 17 to have someone else determine what they are allowed to read,” Nyari said. Líra management said it would use all available legal means to challenge the decision and have it overturned.

Ban on visiting the exhibition for minors: the situation in Budapest

The Hungarian National Museum has banned minors from visiting the international exhibition World Press Photo, even with parental consent. The decision came after several photographs in the exhibition depicted members of the LGBT community in the Philippines. Parliamentarians said the images violated a recently passed law banning the dissemination of LGBT propaganda to minors. Now, persons under 18 years of age cannot visit the museum, even with parental permission. The exhibition organizers expressed their apologies and noted that this is the first time such a situation has occurred in Europe.

This decision caused public discontent and led to widespread debate about freedom of expression and access to information. Many critics argue that banning minors from the exhibition is a form of censorship and a restriction of citizens’ rights to receive information. The organizers of the exhibition expressed regret over the situation and emphasized that their goal was simply to show the diversity of world journalistic photography. However, the museum and the deputies who supported the ban insist on the need to comply with the law and protect the rights of minors.

The ban on visiting the exhibition caused a stir not only within the country, but also abroad. Many international human rights organizations expressed their disagreement with this decision, calling it discriminatory and violating the principles of freedom of speech. They call on the Hungarian authorities to reconsider this decision and ensure equal access to cultural events for all citizens, regardless of age. At the same time, supporters of the ban argue that this is a necessary measure to protect young people from negative influences and propaganda that could affect their worldview and moral values.

The decision by the Russian Supreme Court, recognizing the “international LGBT social movement” (which doesn’t exist) as “extremist” and prohibiting its activities in Russia, was strongly condemned by the European Union. Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, made this statement.

As a senior EU diplomat noted, the Russian court’s decision creates obstacles for LGBTIQ people to exercise their rights and maintain their dignity due to fears of unjustified persecution. This decision raises serious concerns in the international community as it threatens the foundations of freedom and equality before the law. Such actions highlight the need to protect human rights and  Prevent bias stemming from sexual orientation or gender identity. “Against the backdrop of years of violations of the rights of the LGBTIQ community that began under Putin’s presidency, this decision is designed to continue the persecution of the LGBTIQ community in Russia and is aimed at suppressing civil society and those who fearlessly defend human rights,” he said.

Borrell reiterated that the EU insists on the principle of non-discrimination against people and calls on the Russian Federation to immediately end arbitrary suppression, adhere to its global commitments  and ensure “respect, protection and exercise of human rights equally for all.”

The ban was imposed by the Supreme Court of Russia. the activities of an LGBT organization that was claimed to be non-existent

Prior to this, the Supreme Court of Russia, at the request of the Ministry of Justice, declared the activities of the “international LGBT social movement” extremist, which, according to human rights activists, does not actually exist. This court decision was preceded by the adoption of two laws in Russia aimed at harshly persecuting the LGBT community.

First, Russia expanded the application of the law on “LGBT propaganda” to adults – previously it only applied to children. The decision caused significant protest both nationally and globally as many considered it discriminatory and a violation of basic human rights regarding freedom of expression and assembly.

After this, Russian legislation introduced a ban on transgender transition, which included not just altering the gender designation in official paperwork , but also a ban on access to medical procedures necessary for physical transformation. This  prohibition has sparked significant concerns among the medical community and human rights advocates as it hinders the ability to obtain healthcare and threatens the health and well-being of transgender people.

These legislative changes have sparked intense public debate and have been the subject of criticism from many global.

Non-governmental organizations and human rights advocates are urging Russia to adhere to global human rights norms and guarantee equal rights and protections for all its individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Supreme Court of India has declined the proposal for the legalization of same-sex marriage, underlining the significance of upholding the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. A panel of five judges from the Supreme Court concluded that such a decision should fall within the purview of Parliament, the primary legislative authority in the nation, and that amendments to the existing Marriage Law were outside their jurisdiction.

In India, over 21 million people, constituting more than 1.5% of the population, openly identify themselves as part of the LGBTQ+ community, with the actual number potentially being even higher.

The Indian government has expressed its opposition to legislative alterations aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, characterizing the arguments in favor of the proposition as “reflective of urban elite perspectives” and contending that they do not align with the traditional Indian family structure of husband, wife, and children.

The viewpoints among the Supreme Court judges were divided with a ratio of 2:3. Chief Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud, in his concluding statement, emphasized that “the concept of marriage lacks a universally applicable definition” and argued that the matter of recognizing and regulating same-sex marriage should be entrusted to Parliament and state legislatures.

According to his perspective, the institution of marriage primarily gains legal significance through its regulation by the state and the provision of certain material benefits. In this context, the court does not possess the authority to make determinations regarding this institution, as the country’s Constitution does not explicitly establish an individual’s direct right to marriage, unlike, for example, the right to life and personal liberty.

Nonetheless, Justice Chandrachud underscored that certain facets of marital relationships reflect constitutional values, including the right to human dignity, life, and personal liberty. He also highlighted that the court should refrain from intervening in policy matters and should not have the authority to amend the Special Marriage Act.

The second most senior judge in the Supreme Court, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, underscored that while same-sex relationships have been acknowledged in India since ancient times, legal recognition has only been extended to unions between individuals of different genders.

Additionally, he emphasized that while the court cannot confer the right to marry upon LGBTQ+ citizens, it does possess the authority to provide recommendations to the government. Notably, he stressed the importance of ensuring that the rights of same-sex couples are safeguarded in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Multidirectional emotions: disappointment and approval in connection with the Supreme Court decision

The reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling has been diverse and mixed. Those directly impacted by these developments expressed natural disappointment.

“We pay the same taxes as heterosexual couples and encounter the same, if not more, challenges. Yet, we still feel like second-class citizens,” voiced Archie Dutt, a gay student from Delhi.

Pia Chanda, who has been living with her partner for 34 years, criticized the Supreme Court for essentially “shifting responsibility” to Parliament and evading making its own decisions.

However, lawyer and writer Tanushree Bhalla believes that the court acted in accordance with the law and hopes that “the government will heed the court’s recommendations and take the necessary measures to put an end to the discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals on a daily basis, both in legal matters and in everyday life.”

She expressed optimism that the legal framework will evolve in step with societal progress. Adish Aggarwal, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, partially echoed her sentiments. He expressed satisfaction that the court aligned with the government’s stance, asserting that the matter of legalizing same-sex marriage falls beyond the court’s jurisdiction and should exclusively be determined by the Indian Parliament.

However, it’s noteworthy that even prior to the decision, he had voiced opposition to the prospect of legalizing same-sex marriage, deeming it incompatible with “the prevailing system in India.”

Many activists advocating for the rights of sexual minorities had hoped that, if not marriage, at least civil unions for same-sex couples would become lawful following the court’s ruling. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court denied them this opportunity, emphasizing that this issue should also be left to parliament’s discretion. Additionally, the court did not permit same-sex couples to formally adopt children.

Although the judges held differing opinions, they all arrived at the same consensus that legislative amendments fall under the purview of parliament, with the court’s role solely being the interpretation of laws.

While Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul held the view that it is the government’s duty to ensure LGBTQ+ citizens are granted “a complete spectrum of rights and privileges” on par with those enjoyed by heterosexual couples, Justice Bhat dissented, arguing that such demands should not be placed on the state. The second unanimous decision was to endorse the government’s proposal to establish an expert panel to examine the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights.

Recommendations to the government and the police

 

Towards the end of the proceedings, Justice Chandrachud presented a set of recommendations to the government, which included the following key points:

Guarantee that the queer community is shielded from discrimination based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals face no discrimination when accessing goods and services available to all other members of society.

Undertake initiatives to enhance public awareness about LGBTQ+ individuals and their identity, emphasizing its naturalness and dispelling misconceptions of it being a mental disorder.

Establish a dedicated service accessible to LGBTQ+ citizens who have encountered persecution or violence in any form.

Publish information detailing the availability of shelters for LGBTQ+ citizens in all regions, offering them refuge in instances of violence or discrimination.

Put an immediate end to practices by medical professionals or others aimed at altering gender identity or sexual orientation.

The police also received a list of recommendations, including the following directives:

Prohibit the harassment of same-sex couples through summons to police stations or home visits solely for the purpose of verifying their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Respect the choices of queer individuals who do not wish to return to their families.

When queer individuals approach the police with complaints of domestic harassment, the police are mandated to investigate the legitimacy of these complaints and ensure the personal freedom and safety of the complainants.