On 17th October 2023, the Supreme Court of India denied legal recognition to the Indian LGBTQ community in regards to the Marriage Equality case, passing the heavy baton of responsibility to the Centre to form a committee to address the same.
Almost 6 months after these events, BJP pushed out their general election manifesto, wherein they put forth their promises to the Indian LGBTQ+ community. While competing parties have laid out their in-detail plans touching upon marriage equality and redressal of violence against trans folx, BJP has only managed to talk about their intentions to fund more shelters and homes for the transgender community.
Also read: BJP’s Manifesto is Just Tokenism; Here’s Why
It is also noteworthy that in 2022, BJP had managed to block funds for the already existing shelters (Garima Greh) without providing any reasons for the same.
On the advice of the Supreme Court, on the 16th of April, 2024 they also declared their plans to address the Marriage Equality case.
This includes a committee with the following people:
1. Cabinet Secretary
2. Secretary, Department of Home, Ministry of Home Affairs,
3. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development
4. Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Health And Family Welfare
5. Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law And Justice
6. Secretary, Department Of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Social Justice And Empowerment
This is a committee that is to be responsible for the rights of the queer community of India with no LGBTQ+ people present in the committee or being consulted with. Which leads one to question if the committee will be able to understand the gravity of the responsibility they hold?
The document also mentions that they may bring in any experts and other officers if deemed necessary. The necessity which will again be decided by the non-LGBTQ+ committee members. That leads us to the other question – who is the committee acting in the interest of? The party, to ensure smooth elections results for, or the LGBTQ+ community?
The formation of this community could have been a way to seek the approval of the Supreme Court in the lead up to the general elections. Or temporarily, acknowledging the voices of the LGBTQ+ community given the built-up pressure. One can hope that we keep questioning and pushing the government to listen to our need for rights.
