What members of the queer community suggested at a closed-door government consultation

Over the past fortnight, the Centre has announced measures to address the discrimination against the queer community in India. Government advisories have said that queer couples can apply for ration cards as part of the same household and that there are no restrictions on their opening joint bank accounts and nominating each other as beneficiaries.

These recommendations, among others, are the result of a consultation that the Centre’s Department of Social Justice and Empowerment held on July 25 with “representative members from the LGBTQI+ community, central ministries and states”. Between 15-20 representatives of the queer community attended the consultation in Delhi but there is no public record of the meeting.

Scroll spoke to six participants about what had transpired at the meeting. None of them knew why they had been chosen to attend the consultation – an official from the department had directly emailed them an invitation seeking their participation to discuss recommendations to reduce violence and discrimination against the queer community and extend social welfare benefits.

More queer-friendly initiatives may be announced, suggests a press release by the Department Social Justice and Empowerment issued on September 1 inviting inputs from stakeholders and the public to ensure that policies and initiatives for the LGBTQI+ community are “inclusive and effective”.

The participants, however, had mixed opinions about the consultation as well as the measures announced. Some criticised the announcements as “token” but others said they were a promising step in the right direction.

Many queer community representatives, including three that Scroll spoke to, also expressed concern over the participation of Vidhi Centre for Law and Policy, a Delhi-based legal think-tank. The think tank has, in the past, been criticised for co-opting democratic spaces. The think tank denied these allegations to Scroll.

Scroll asked the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment how participants were chosen to attend the consultation, for a copy of the minutes of the meeting and if more consultations are planned. This story will be updated when the department responds.

‘Token’ measures

The government’s initiatives spring from the Supreme Court’s refusal in October 2023 to grant queer people the right to marry. The Court had then recorded the Centre’s assurance that it would constitute a committee to submit measures to address discrimination against queer people.

On April 16, the Centre set up a six-member committee chaired by the cabinet secretary and comprising the secretaries of the ministries of home affairs, women and child development, health and family welfare, and the department of social justice and empowerment and the legislative department.

The July 25 consultation meeting was a cordial affair, said the participants Scroll spoke to. All participants are prominent voices of the queer community and most of them have previously been consulted by the government on queer rights.

Everyone was given a chance to express their views and there was space to air disagreements over the measures suggested. “Bureaucrats at the meeting had an understanding of queer terms and vocabulary,” Harish Iyer, a Mumbai-based activist who attended the consultation, told Scroll. “This was never the case in earlier government meetings on queer subjects that I have attended.” After the consultation, participants were asked to send their recommendations in writing to the department by July 31. Some participants negotiated to get the deadline extended up to August 5.

The press release issued on September 1 outlines the steps taken by the government to support the queer community. It lists the advisories on bank joint accounts and nominating a queer partner as well single household ration cards. It also states that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has framed guidelines for the medical treatment of intersex infants and children to ensure they lead a healthy life without complications. But no such guidelines are in the public domain yet.

Iyer, who works as the diversity and inclusion head and senior vice president of a multinational banking and financial services company, said that he had recommended the advisory on bank accounts.

Some participants pointed out that since any two persons can already open joint bank accounts, the advisory does not create any new legal entitlement.

Suraj Sanap, an advocate and consultant with the Pune-based Centre for Health Equity, Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, said a bank account nominee is not a legal heir. If a queer person passes away, their partner, as the nominee, can only serve as a trustee of the bank account. The queer person’s family members, instead, may be the legal heirs and have greater rights to the money.

Another participant, L Ramakrishnan, vice president of the Chennai-based nonprofit Solidarity and Action Against The HIV Infection in India, said that he had suggested the directive on ration cards for queer couples.

But both Sanap and Ramakrishnan asked how two persons could prove that they are in a queer relationship to be granted single household ration cards. “The government’s intention is fine, but execution is lacking,” said Sanap.

Gopi Shankar Madurai, an intersex and indigenous rights activist who participated in the consultation, described these as “tokenistic measures”.

Iyer, however, disagreed. “While we must be sceptical of what comes next, what is happening now is good,” he said. “These measures will help in building pressure on banks and governments and empower queer individuals to seek their rights.”

Ankit Bhuptani, a Mumbai-based Diversity and Inclusion consultant and founder of the Queer Hindu Alliance, also had a favourable view of the measures. Bhuptani said that “when the government puts out an advisory, it reinforces something”. According to him, banks are more likely to open joint bank accounts for queer couples now. “Any government listening and bringing change is huge and must be welcomed and celebrated as a milestone,” he said.

Better representation

In its judgement, the Supreme Court had directed the committee to hold “wide stakeholder consultations” with the queer community.

Some participants told Scroll that a single consultation with select members falls short of that directive. “It must be the first of at least a series,” said intersex and indigenous rights activist Madurai.

Other participants said the consultation did not reflect the vast diversity of identities within the queer community. “There is such a large spectrum of identities that were not heard at the meeting,” said a participant at the consultation who did not wish to be identified. “There need to be at least state-level consultations with more community members.”

Ramakrishnan, however, said there were “token members of each constituent group of the queer community” at the meeting. Despite this, he said: “I would have liked to see representation from trans men and more cis queer women.”

Sanap and Ramakrishnan, in their joint written submissions, made along with three other individuals and two collectives to the department, also objected to the participation of Vidhi Centre for Law and Policy. They noted that they had been informed by the secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment that the committee would seek assistance from the think tank to write its final report.

In their submission, they accused the think tank of taking over democratic spaces meant for public groups and using approaches that are “contrary to rights-based values in law, rights and public policy”. Both of them demanded that the think tank recuses itself from committee’s proceedings to “enable LGBTQIA+ people to effectively participate in the democratic process for the community”.

The think tank, however, told Scroll that five of its representatives attended the meeting upon invitation. It said it has not been engaged by the committee or the ministry in any capacity and nor had it helped them draft any policies. “[W]e are open to engaging with the Ministry or the Committee should the opportunity arise,” said the think tank.