The Madras High Court ruled that same-sex couples can form a family even without legal marriage, affirming their right to cohabit under Article 21. The Court ordered police protection, condemned familial detention, and upheld the concept of “chosen family” in LGBTQIA+ rights jurisprudence.
CHENNAI, June 5, 2025: The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that same-sex couples can form a family even though same-sex marriage is not yet recognized under Indian law. The decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the release of her same-sex partner allegedly detained by her natal family.
Same-Sex Couples Can Form a Family: Court Upholds Right to Chosen Family
The petitioner alleged that her lesbian partner was forcibly taken away by her family and subjected to physical abuse and “corrective” rituals. Disturbingly, the local police, instead of protecting the detenue, allegedly aided the family and coerced the young woman into leaving with her parents.
During the proceedings, the detenue, a 25-year-old educated woman, appeared in court and unambiguously stated that she is a lesbian, of sound mind, and desires to live with the petitioner. She confirmed being detained and abused by her family for being in a same-sex relationship.
The Madras High Court, while delivering the verdict, emphasized that “marriage is not the only foundation of a family” and highlighted the jurisprudential recognition of the “chosen family” concept under LGBTQIA+ rights. Citing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023 INSC 920), the Court ruled that while same-sex marriage is not yet legal, same-sex partners retain the constitutional right to cohabit and form a family unit under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Slams Police Inaction and Upholds LGBTQIA+ Rights
The Division Bench was critical of the police’s apathy and noted that authorities are bound by a “correlative duty” to protect the constitutional rights of LGBTQIA+ persons. The Court took note of the Yogyakarta Principles, international human rights guidelines on sexual orientation and gender identity, and stressed the importance of personal liberty and bodily autonomy.
Importantly, the Court contrasted the compassion of Justice Leila Seth, who supported her son Vikram Seth after he came out as gay, with the harsh conduct of the detenue’s mother.
It ruled that
“a parent’s disapproval does not override an adult’s right to choose their life partner, irrespective of gender.”
The Bench also expressed discomfort with the term “queer”, observing that its traditional dictionary meaning implies “odd” or “strange,” which may inadvertently stigmatize LGBTQIA+ individuals.
Court Issues Continuing Mandamus for Protection of Same-Sex Couple
In its final order, the Bench:
- Directed the detenue’s release and affirmed her right to cohabit with the petitioner.
- Restrained the natal family from interfering in the detenue’s personal liberty.
- Censured police inaction, emphasizing their duty to act in such matters.
- Issued a writ of continuing mandamus instructing the jurisdictional police to provide ongoing protection to the couple, should they request it.
This ruling sets an important precedent in reinforcing the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons in India beyond the issue of marriage. The recognition that same-sex couples can form a family independently of legal marriage marks a decisive step forward in the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Case Details
- Cause Title: M.A. v. Superintendent of Police & Ors.
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Hon’ble Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
- Date of Judgment: June 5, 2025
- Petitioner Counsel: Adv. M.A. Mumtaj Surya
- Respondents’ Counsel: Addl. Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…