Tolerable Identities, Intolerable Sex Acts

2020 ◽  
pp. 101-126
Author(s):  
Chaitanya Lakkimsetti
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Activism ◽  
Gender Identities ◽  
Political Identities ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Sexually Marginalized ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact

This chapter comparatively focuses on rights struggles of gay groups and transgender/hijra groups by focusing on two seemingly contradictory judgments of the Indian Supreme Court—the Koushal judgment of 2013, which declared Section 377 constitutional, and the same court’s 2014 NALSA decision, which granted rights to transgender groups—in order to discuss the impact of these legal decisions on the rights and recognition of LGBTKQHI groups. While the NALSA judgment made nonnormative gender identities legal, the Koushal judgment retained Section 377 and therefore upheld the idea that sexual acts considered to be against the “order of nature” were criminal. The chapter illustrates that while years of social activism have led to the tolerance of identities (today LGBTKQHI groups regularly organize pride marches and rally their political identities in public), nonnormative sexual acts remained criminal until 2018. The legal dichotomization of acts and identities has very important implications for the rights of sexually marginalized groups.

scholarly journals From Executive Appointment to the Collegium System: The Impact on Diversity in the Indian Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aparna Chandra ◽  
William Hubbard ◽  
Sital Kalantry
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
High Court ◽  
Judicial Appointments ◽  
High Courts ◽  
National Debate ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

There has been a national debate raging in India about the system of appointments for Supreme Court and High Court judges. At the founding of the Indian Supreme Court, the executive had primary authority over judicial appointments. In 1993, the Supreme Court created a new system of appointments known as the collegium system, whereby the Chief Justice of India and senior judges of the Supreme Court make new appointments to the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts. In 2014, Parliament amended the Constitution and passed a bill to create a commission to appoint judges, but the Indian Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional.In this article, we ascertain whether the nature of the appointments procedure impacts the biographical and other characteristics of the judges that are eventually selected. We do this by comparing the biographical characteristics of judges appointed by the executive-appointments system (prior to 1993), on the one hand, and the judges appointed by the collegium (on or after 1993) to the Supreme Court of India.We find that both the pre-collegium and the collegium system maintain the geographical and religious diversity of India in the candidates that are appointed. However, both have failed to account for gender diversity. In addition, the path to the Supreme Court appears to have narrowed – typically those who are appointed as judges by the collegium spend longer periods in private practice and on the bench than pre-collegium judges.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Impact of the Indian Supreme Court Judgment on Sex-Selective Abortion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sital Kalantry
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Selective Abortion ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Selective Abortion ◽  
The Government ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact

Lawyers bring public interest litigation cases (“PIL”) to the Indian Supreme Court seeking many different types of remedies, including to prevent the construction of power plants that may damage the environment or to prevent violations of rights of a group of people. The Indian Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court” or “Court”) sometimes responds by creating guidelines like what the executive branch might do. But in many PIL cases, litigants are not asking for the creating of new rules, but instead they are simply asking the Supreme Court to encourage the government to amend, implement, and enforce laws that already exist.

The Right to Housing: Challenges Associated with the ‘Waiting List System’ Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality V Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 3 SA 23 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-121
Author(s):  
Shamier Ebrahim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
The State ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The right to adequate housing is a constitutional imperative which is contained in section 26 of the Constitution. The state is tasked with the progressive realisation of this right. The allocation of housing has been plagued with challenges which impact negatively on the allocation process. This note analyses Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 51 which dealt with a situation where one of the main reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Appeal for refusing the eviction order was because the appellants subjected the unlawful occupiers to defective waiting lists and failed to engage with the community regarding the compilation of the lists and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries. This case brings to the fore the importance of a coherent (reasonable) waiting list in eviction proceedings. This note further analyses the impact of the waiting list system in eviction proceedings and makes recommendations regarding what would constitute a coherent (reasonable) waiting list for the purpose of section 26(2) of the Constitution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document