INTRODUCTION
On 4 June 2025, the Madras High Court delivered a significant judgment expanding the legal understanding of “family” in the Indian constitutional framework. The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman whose same-sex partner was allegedly confined and subjected to forced religious rituals by her family. While ordering the partner’s release, the Court held that individuals have the right to choose their companions and that such consensual relationships deserve constitutional protection.
This blog analyses the key aspects of the judgment, including the case’s background, the legal and constitutional issues it raised, and the reasoning adopted by the Court. It discusses how the decision aligns with evolving interpretations of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects personal liberty and dignity. It also considers the broader legal implications, such as the recognition of chosen families, the duties of law enforcement, and the potential impact on future questions related to adoption, inheritance, and civil rights for LGBTQIA+ individuals. A comparative perspective is also included, examining how similar issues have been addressed in other jurisdictions.[1]
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The case started when a 25-year-old woman from Tamil Nadu filed a habeas corpus petition. She said her same-sex partner had been forcefully kept away by her partner’s family. She claimed that her partner was taken without consent, beaten, forced to go through religious rituals to “change” her sexual orientation, and denied fundamental constitutional rights.
The case was heard by two judges, Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, in the Madras High Court. They met with the woman who was held captive, who clearly said she wanted to live with her partner. After confirming the relationship was consensual and that her rights were being violated, the court ordered her immediate release.
LEGAL ISSUES
This case brought up important legal questions. Can a same-sex relationship, agreed upon by both people, be considered a family even though same-sex marriage is not yet legally recognised? Do people have the right to create “chosen families” under Article 21 of the Constitution[2], which guarantees the right to life and personal freedom? What should the police do to protect individuals from harmful actions by their families or society, mainly when based on conservative cultural ideas?
JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
The court said “family” should not be limited to marriage, blood relations, or having children. The judges said marriage is not the only way to form a family. They acknowledged the idea of “chosen families,” which means people can create family-like bonds based on love and support, especially relevant for LGBTQIA+ people whose biological families may reject them.
The court also emphasised that personal freedom includes choosing one’s partner and living with them, regardless of gender. This is part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judges referred to the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India,[3] where consensual same-sex relationships were decriminalised, to support this idea.
The court strongly criticised societal and family pressures that harm LGBTQIA+ individuals, such as forcing people into religious “cures” or confining them against their will. The judges made it clear that even though same-sex marriage is not yet legal, this does not mean that the law cannot protect queer relationships.
The court also expressed concern about police officers who ignored complaints from the petitioner. They reminded law enforcement to protect fundamental rights, not to allow discrimination. This reflected earlier judgments calling for better police sensitisation on LGBTQIA+ issues.[4]
Although this judgment was based on Indian law, it aligns with global human rights trends. Courts in countries like South Africa, the USA, and Europe have recognised that families come in many forms beyond traditional definitions[5]
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
This judgment is important because it strengthens Article 21 by protecting the right to form relationships and families beyond traditional marriage. It expands the meaning of “family” under Indian law to include chosen families and same-sex partnerships. This ruling helps push forward the rights of queer people, especially when legislative changes are still pending[6]
Though it does not make same-sex marriage legal, it ensures that LGBTQIA+ individuals’ dignity and freedom are respected in the meantime. It shows that the Constitution can be interpreted in a way that grows with changing social realities.
IMPACT ON FUTURE CASES AND SOCIETY
These rulings lay the groundwork for future issues like adoption and custody rights for same-sex couples, inheritance within chosen families, health care decisions, housing rights, and protection from domestic violence. By recognising chosen families, the court challenges the idea that marriage is the only way to create legal family ties. This could encourage lawmakers and courts to take further steps to protect queer relationships.
The judgment also encourages people in the LGBTQIA+ community to come forward without fear of being ignored or punished. It reminds the police and government officials to actively defend constitutional rights when people’s freedoms are threatened.
REMAINING CHALLENGES
Despite this favourable judgment, challenges remain. There is still no clear law allowing same-sex marriage, adoption, or civil partnerships. Many police and government officials still lack proper training about LGBTQIA+ rights. Conservative social attitudes continue to resist change, especially within families. Also, different courts across India sometimes give different rulings on similar matters.s
Therefore, while such judicial decisions are critical, they need to be supported by changes in law, awareness programs, and policies that protect these rights firmly.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Recognition of chosen families is happening in other countries, too. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalised same-sex marriage nationwide[7]. The UK has laws allowing civil partnerships and same-sex marriages. South Africa’s Constitutional Court recognised same-sex couples’ rights as early as 2005, protecting dignity and equality. [8]
India is moving slowly but surely in this direction. Judgments like the Madras High Court one are key milestones in this journey.
CONCLUSION
The Madras High Court’s 2025 judgment marks an important development in India’s constitutional recognition of diverse family structures. By acknowledging that family relationships may extend beyond traditional marriage or blood ties, the Court affirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the freedom to live with a partner of one’s choice, irrespective of gender. This interpretation supports the constitutional values of dignity, autonomy, and equality.
While the judgment does not grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, it strengthens the legal foundation for protecting LGBTQIA+ relationships against societal and familial interference. It also reinforces the responsibility of law enforcement authorities to act in defence of constitutional rights, not in furtherance of social prejudice.
This decision may influence the development of future legal frameworks around adoption, domestic rights, inheritance, and healthcare for queer individuals. However, judicial pronouncements alone are not sufficient. Legislative reforms, administrative guidelines, and public sensitisation are essential to ensure such rights are realised in practice.
The ruling reflects the judiciary’s evolving approach to interpreting the Constitution in line with contemporary realities. It is a progressive step toward a more inclusive legal system that recognises and protects the diversity of personal relationships in modern India.
Author(s) Name: Vaidehi Sharma (Symbiosis University, NOIDA)
References:
[1] M.A. v The Superintendent of Police & Ors, HCP No. 984 of 2025, Madras High Court, 4 June 2025
[2] Constitution of India art 21.
[3] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.
[4] S Sushma v Commissioner of Police (2021) SCC OnLine Mad 2204
[5] Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC); Obergefell v Hodges 576 US 644 (2015); Oliari and Others v Italy App no. 18766/11 (ECtHR, 21 July 2015).
[6] Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192.
[7] Obergefell v Hodges 576 US 644 (2015).
[8] Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC)
