Our readers had shown interest in the official English translation of the decision by the Supreme Court of Nepal in the gay rights case. The original version (in Nepali) is available here.
Official translation of the Nepali gay rights case
Further reading
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting and useful.
The document uploaded by you mentions that “there are many groups in different places of this category. In India, there is a group known as Hijaras and there is the provision of specifying their own identity in their passport and other identity cards.”
I am rather curious to know if this is true. Anyone?
This judgment states that “While making the harmonious interpretation of the provisions of article 2, article 16 and article 17 of the ICCPR, it seems that the state has to recognize every individual with their own identity or every person has the right to have one’s own identity in spite of the article 10 of the ICESCR and the article 23 of the ICCPR, which Nepal has already ratified and applied as national laws, have provided the right to marry only to the men and women. The article 17 of the ICESCR provides the right to privacy of the family life to an individual as well as it also guarantees the right of not to be subjected of an unlawful attacks on her/his honour and reputation.”
India is a signatory (in 1979) to both International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Coventant on Economic Social Cultural Rights. It is interesting to note that India has not ratified these conventions and therefore there is no legal obligation for India to apply the Convention.
One fails to understand why such human rights conventions are not ratified. Essentially the concept of signatory and ratification, allows the new country time to adapt its internal laws and enforcement machinery to enforce such conventions.
In our case, we signed these fancy conventions in 1979, but no one wants to ratify them and make them binding laws of the land.
Dear Renu
1. Tamil Nadu apparently allows hijras to change their sex on official documents, and apparently also has a special category ‘T’ for transgender.
2. I think India has signed AND ratified ICCPR and ICSER – what it hasn’t signed is the Optional Protocol which gives an individual the right to complain to committees established under these conventions.
3. The one important convention that India has signed but not ratified is the Convention against Torture.
Thank you Tarun.
Apologies for the error in ratification status of ICCPR and ICCER. The list of states which have ratified the conventions uploaded on relevant UN website appears to be erroneous.