Case Summary: Devu G Nair vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
(2024) 03 SC CK 0072
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 1730 Of 2024
Appellant: Devu G Nair
Respondent: State Of Kerala & Ors.
Date of Decision : 11-03-2024
Hon'ble Judges : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJ ; J.B. Pardiwala, J ; Manoj Misra, J
Bench : Full Bench
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369712-devu-g-nair-vs-state?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
Citations:
(2024) 03 SC CK 0072
Facts of the Case:
The appellant and the corpus (‘X’), both adult women, were in an intimate relationship. The appellant filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that ‘X’ was being detained by her parents against her will. The Kerala High Court ordered interaction with ‘X’ and directed her to undergo counselling. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the reports from the Family Court and Ms. Saleena V. G. Nair, which confirmed that ‘X’, a postgraduate, was voluntarily residing with her parents, focused on her career, and not in illegal detention. The Court thus disposed of the appeal.
Law Points Raised:
1. Scope of Article 136 jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters.
2. Whether courts can direct counselling in cases involving sexual orientation.
3. The constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ persons in relation to liberty, privacy, and chosen family.
4. The extent of judicial discretion in ascertaining the will of the alleged detainee.
5. Safeguards in handling habeas corpus petitions involving intimate partners.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 136
Judgments Referred:
• Precedents on habeas corpus and personal liberty
• Judicial approaches to LGBTQ+ rights (citing broader constitutional jurisprudence)
Obiter Dicta:
The Court cautioned against using counselling as a tool to override the will, identity, or sexual orientation of an individual. It emphasized that family is not limited to the natal family but includes ‘chosen families’ that are significant in LGBTQ+ contexts. Courts must ensure empathy, privacy, and protection for individuals asserting autonomy.
Ratio Decidendi:
The will of the corpus must be paramount in habeas corpus cases. Courts cannot impose counselling or parental supervision to alter sexual orientation or identity. Guidelines were issued to safeguard the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ persons in such proceedings.
Final Ruling:
The appeal was disposed of as the corpus was found to be voluntarily residing with her parents. However, the Supreme Court set aside the counselling direction of the High Court and issued binding guidelines for courts to follow in habeas corpus and police protection cases involving LGBTQ+ individuals.
Summary:
This landmark judgment reinforces the rights of LGBTQ+ persons to autonomy, dignity, and chosen families. It cautions courts against counselling intended to change sexual orientation or identity, sets guidelines for handling habeas corpus petitions, and affirms that the will of the individual must remain central. The ruling balances constitutional protections with judicial responsibility under Article 136.