Supreme Court Restrains Courts from Ordering Counselling, Issues Landmark Guidelines to Protect Autonomy, particularly with respect to their sexual orientation

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Supreme Court Restrains...

In Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 228, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing a criminal appeal against interim orders of the Kerala High Court in a writ of habeas corpus, laid down important guidelines to safeguard the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners and LGBTQ+ persons facing illegal detention. The Appellant alleged that she and X, both women in an intimate relationship, were forcibly separated when X’s parents illegally detained her against her will. The High Court, through one of its interim orders, had directed X to undergo counselling with a psychologist.

The Supreme Court. upon reviewing an interview of X conducted by a member of its e-committee, found that X was not illegally detained, had no intention to marry or cohabit with anyone, and wished to focus on her career. However, the Court upon being informed that the High Court had been issuing orders directing counselling of persons similarly situated, expressed serious concern over the practice of High Courts directing counselling or parental oversight in such matters, cautioning that these could undermine individual autonomy, especially regarding sexual orientation. Criticising such directions for their deterrent effect on such individuals, the Court issued a set of guidelines for handling Habeas Corpus petitions, petitions seeking protection from family or police interference.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Ajaykumar Sunilkumar Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 359

The Court held in the Instant case that the following, among other circumstances, can generally be used to determine if someone had the intent to cause death: The type of weapon used, whether the accused carried the weapon or if it was picked up there, whether the blow is intended Read more »

The Beneficial intention of a legislation shall be given primacy in cases where two views prevail

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025 INSC 20)Date of Judgment: 2 January 2025 In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20, the Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case revolved around Read more »

Meena (Smt.) W/o. Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2000 (5) SCC 21

The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, mere recovery of the currency note and positive result of the phenolphthalein test not enough in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to establish guilt of the appellant on the basis of perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence. That the Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.