By Shivani Dewalla
Our arrival unto the world is marked by “their” presence. Marriages would be incomplete without “their” performances, “their” blessings. The halt at the traffic light is one of the most likely places to spot “them”. But why is it that their presence is only restricted to such occasions? Why are they not present in our classrooms? In our offices? Why are they not our neighbours? Or our friends? “Their” existence and conditions are synonymous to the English idiom ‘elephant in the room’; they exist but they are seldom part of our daily conversations, daily life. In fact even if this article ends without naming “them”, it will not be a task for the readers to identify them- such is their pervasiveness in the Indian society.
Continue reading “Reflections on Access to Justice for Transgender People in India”
By Anmol Ratan
In March 2020, the High Court of Singapore by the way of its decision in the case of Ong Ming Johnson v. Attorney-General and other matters upheld the validity of its colonial sodomy law, namely the Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code yet again. This section criminalises the act of ‘gross indecency’ among two male persons by punishing them for a maximum term of 2 years. The issues raised in this case were premised on the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 377A and its nature vis-e-vie the constitutional rights of liberty, equality and freedom of expression as envisaged under Articles 9(1), 12(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of Singapore. The judgement which was pronounced by Judge See Kee Oon justified the existence and legality of Section 377A on the arguably unfounded grounds of public morality and religious harmony. Continue reading “Singapore High Court denies justice, again.”