<p>October 17, 2025, marked two years since the Supreme Court’s judgement in Supriyo v. Union of India, the marriage equality case. The Court unanimously held that there was no fundamental right to marry, and the majority found no constitutional infirmity in the Special Marriage Act, 1954, or the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the CARA guidelines restricting joint adoption by queer couples.</p>.<p>Importantly, however, all judges concurred that queer persons face rampant discrimination across spheres of law and life – education, employment, healthcare, housing, and relationships. The Court noted the multifaceted ways in which queer individuals and couples suffer exclusion, discrimination, hostility, and even violence. The Court relied on the Union Government’s assurance to create a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to redress discrimination and passed binding orders to operationalise the HPC.</p>.<p>The HPC was set up in 2024, and some interim measures were taken. For instance, the Department of Food and Public Distribution advised states and Union Territories to treat queer partners as a single household for ration card purposes. The Department of Financial Services clarified that queer persons could open joint bank accounts and nominate their partners. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directed states to safeguard LGBTQI+ rights in healthcare, prohibit conversion therapy, and sensitise medical staff. Medical guidelines relating to intersex persons were also issued. When questioned in the Lok Sabha this February, the government merely restated these measures, admitting no further action in the past year.</p>.<p>However, many of these advisories and directions do not comprehensively solve issues. For example, the Tamil Nadu Medical Council’s (TNMC) recent announcement that doctors conducting conversion therapy could face suspension of their licenses is a positive step. Yet, with ‘conversion therapy’ undefined in law, coercive counselling, forced isolation, or even ‘corrective rape’ may escape such regulation. Moreover, unlicensed practitioners or quacks who claim to ‘cure’ queer identities remain beyond the TNMC’s regulatory oversight.</p>.<p>Similarly, the Department of Financial Services merely reiterated existing policy, without adding rights or procedures to ease property transfers between queer partners. Even today, intestate succession is solely tied to one’s natal family and heterosexual, marital relationships, which excludes queer families. These criticisms may be seen as jumping the gun, as the HPC has a much broader mandate and is expected to tackle many of these issues. However, there is no clarity on HPC’s timeline and recommendations, creating uncertainty about forward-looking legislative and executive measures.</p>.<p>Some state governments have shown initiative, albeit in a limited manner. Following the directions of the Madras High Court to formulate an LGBTQI+ policy, the Tamil Nadu government released a Policy for Transgender Persons a few months ago. The Policy has been criticised on some fronts since it skirts around important issues such as reservations in education and employment for trans persons, while entirely leaving out sexual minorities from its ambit. Nonetheless, the initiative signals a willingness to engage with the demands of the queer community, which is important in achieving change gradually.</p>.<p><strong>Statutory reform</strong></p>.<p>The Kerala government launched a housing scheme for transgender persons, providing financial assistance for the purchase of land and construction of houses. The government of Uttar Pradesh extended its Mukhyamantri Yuva Udyami Vikas Abhiyan to transgender persons, offering skills training, financial support, and access to loans for self-employment, along with a mandate to districts to employ trans persons. These measures signal change but are subject to changes at the discretion of ministers or bureaucrats. In contrast, statutory and legislative changes are more permanent and capable of better enforcement. Thus, state governments should move towards crystallising the actions they have taken for LGBTQI+ welfare.</p>.<p>The lack of substantive regulation has not deterred queer persons from approaching courts and demanding their rights. A same-sex couple recently petitioned the Bombay High Court, arguing that taxing gifts between same-sex partners but exempting heterosexual couples under the Income Tax Act violates their constitutional rights. In another petition, the Delhi High Court asked the Centre to justify the exclusion of queer couples from consenting on behalf of their partners for medical treatment or emergencies.</p>.<p>This piecemeal approach may ultimately be useful in achieving tangible reforms in the statute books of our country. Even though marriage equality was denied two years ago, the legislative relief that would have followed is now being pursued incrementally. The second anniversary of Supriyo should remind us that the story is not over yet – we are here to write an anthology over the next few years and decades.</p>.<p><em>(Jwalika is a research fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy; Ishani is a fourth-year student at RGNUL, Punjab)</em></p><p><em>(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)</em></p>
<p>October 17, 2025, marked two years since the Supreme Court’s judgement in Supriyo v. Union of India, the marriage equality case. The Court unanimously held that there was no fundamental right to marry, and the majority found no constitutional infirmity in the Special Marriage Act, 1954, or the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the CARA guidelines restricting joint adoption by queer couples.</p>.<p>Importantly, however, all judges concurred that queer persons face rampant discrimination across spheres of law and life – education, employment, healthcare, housing, and relationships. The Court noted the multifaceted ways in which queer individuals and couples suffer exclusion, discrimination, hostility, and even violence. The Court relied on the Union Government’s assurance to create a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to redress discrimination and passed binding orders to operationalise the HPC.</p>.<p>The HPC was set up in 2024, and some interim measures were taken. For instance, the Department of Food and Public Distribution advised states and Union Territories to treat queer partners as a single household for ration card purposes. The Department of Financial Services clarified that queer persons could open joint bank accounts and nominate their partners. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directed states to safeguard LGBTQI+ rights in healthcare, prohibit conversion therapy, and sensitise medical staff. Medical guidelines relating to intersex persons were also issued. When questioned in the Lok Sabha this February, the government merely restated these measures, admitting no further action in the past year.</p>.<p>However, many of these advisories and directions do not comprehensively solve issues. For example, the Tamil Nadu Medical Council’s (TNMC) recent announcement that doctors conducting conversion therapy could face suspension of their licenses is a positive step. Yet, with ‘conversion therapy’ undefined in law, coercive counselling, forced isolation, or even ‘corrective rape’ may escape such regulation. Moreover, unlicensed practitioners or quacks who claim to ‘cure’ queer identities remain beyond the TNMC’s regulatory oversight.</p>.<p>Similarly, the Department of Financial Services merely reiterated existing policy, without adding rights or procedures to ease property transfers between queer partners. Even today, intestate succession is solely tied to one’s natal family and heterosexual, marital relationships, which excludes queer families. These criticisms may be seen as jumping the gun, as the HPC has a much broader mandate and is expected to tackle many of these issues. However, there is no clarity on HPC’s timeline and recommendations, creating uncertainty about forward-looking legislative and executive measures.</p>.<p>Some state governments have shown initiative, albeit in a limited manner. Following the directions of the Madras High Court to formulate an LGBTQI+ policy, the Tamil Nadu government released a Policy for Transgender Persons a few months ago. The Policy has been criticised on some fronts since it skirts around important issues such as reservations in education and employment for trans persons, while entirely leaving out sexual minorities from its ambit. Nonetheless, the initiative signals a willingness to engage with the demands of the queer community, which is important in achieving change gradually.</p>.<p><strong>Statutory reform</strong></p>.<p>The Kerala government launched a housing scheme for transgender persons, providing financial assistance for the purchase of land and construction of houses. The government of Uttar Pradesh extended its Mukhyamantri Yuva Udyami Vikas Abhiyan to transgender persons, offering skills training, financial support, and access to loans for self-employment, along with a mandate to districts to employ trans persons. These measures signal change but are subject to changes at the discretion of ministers or bureaucrats. In contrast, statutory and legislative changes are more permanent and capable of better enforcement. Thus, state governments should move towards crystallising the actions they have taken for LGBTQI+ welfare.</p>.<p>The lack of substantive regulation has not deterred queer persons from approaching courts and demanding their rights. A same-sex couple recently petitioned the Bombay High Court, arguing that taxing gifts between same-sex partners but exempting heterosexual couples under the Income Tax Act violates their constitutional rights. In another petition, the Delhi High Court asked the Centre to justify the exclusion of queer couples from consenting on behalf of their partners for medical treatment or emergencies.</p>.<p>This piecemeal approach may ultimately be useful in achieving tangible reforms in the statute books of our country. Even though marriage equality was denied two years ago, the legislative relief that would have followed is now being pursued incrementally. The second anniversary of Supriyo should remind us that the story is not over yet – we are here to write an anthology over the next few years and decades.</p>.<p><em>(Jwalika is a research fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy; Ishani is a fourth-year student at RGNUL, Punjab)</em></p><p><em>(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)</em></p>
