Kerala High Court: V.Kunhikrishnan, J., directed the Kerala government to take strict action against forced conversion therapy of LGBTQA+ community in the State. The Bench also directed the government to constitute an expert committee and form a guideline based on that in this regard.
The petitioner 1, a registered association of people belonging to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Intersex Life (LGBTQI community) and the petitioner 2 , a transman and an alleged victim of forced conversion theory had approached the Court with the grievance that a practice of forced conversion at the instance of the medical practitioners was going on in Kerala, which create several physical problems to the petitioners’ community. According to the petitioners, there is no government guideline prescribing such conversion.
A report prepared by the Indian Psychiatry Society defines Conversion Therapy as, “Conversion therapies are any treatments, including individual talk therapy, behavioral (e.g. aversive stimuli), group therapy or milieu (e.g. “retreats or inpatient treatments” relying on all of the above methods) treatments, which attempt to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. However these practices have been repudiated by major mental health organizations because of increasing evidence that they are ineffective and may cause harm to individuals affected and their families who fail to change…”
The report also suggested that at present, California, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois, Washington, DC, and the Canadian Province of Ontario had passed legislation banning conversion therapy for minors and an increasing number of US States are considering similar bans.
Noticeably, the government asserted that there was no complaint received alleging forced conversion and on the other hand, the petitioners said that there was forced conversion. Considering that there was no guideline prescribed by the State Government for conversion therapy among LGBTQ+ community, the Bench stated that if there is forced conversion as alleged by the petitioners, stringent action should be taken by the State.
Opining that a guideline is necessary in this regard for conversion therapy, if medically it is possible, the Bench directed State government to look into the matter and constitute an expert committee to study the issue, if necessary. The Bench further directed that based on the study report, the State shall frame a guideline and produce the same before this Court within 5 months. The Bench added, before finalising the guidelines, a representative of the petitioner 1 shall be heard. [Queerala An Organization for Malayali LGBTIQ Community v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 21202 of 2020, Decided on 10-12-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance by:
For the Petitioners: M/S.Ferha Azeez, Advocate
For the State: Government Pleader
For Respondent 6: Bijo Francis and Jose Kuriakose, Advocate
For Respondent 7: Smruthi Sasidharan, Advocate