Justice Venkatesh highlighted how even major countries are working towards removing such outdated notions. He questioned why medical institutions and society continue to use language that implies LGBTQIA+ identities are disorders.
Madras: The Madras High Court has raised concerns over the continued use of the term “Gender Identity Disorder” to describe transgender individuals and those belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community.
Justice Anand Venkatesh strongly objected to such terminology, emphasizing that it wrongly suggests that being LGBTQIA+ is a disorder when, in reality, it is a natural identity.
ALSO READ: LGBTQIA+ Rights In India & Many More: Landmark Judgments By CJI DY Chandrachud
Justice Venkatesh highlighted how even major countries are working towards removing such outdated notions. He questioned why medical institutions and society continue to use language that implies LGBTQIA+ identities are disorders.
“(Even) big countries are trying to say there is nothing like that (LGBTQ+ identities) … Somehow impression is given it (LGBTQ+ identities) is a disorder. Why would you use this language – ‘Gender Identity Disorder’? It shows the mindset. Whereas what we are trying to do is tell the whole world, there is no disorder (in people being part of LGBTQ+ community). Nature has decided to create someone this way,” he stated.
The judge further stressed the need for societal change, asserting that merely modifying educational content is insufficient if deep-rooted prejudices persist.
“You can bring any change in curriculum, but if you continue to say these persons are suffering from ‘Gender Identity Disorder’, all of this is waste, because fundamentally we are not changing (our mindset),” he said.
The Court expressed disappointment with the National Medical Commission (NMC) for its slow progress in updating medical regulations and curriculum to reflect accurate and inclusive knowledge about LGBTQIA+ individuals. The bench was informed that the NMC had failed to implement several suggestions proposed by an expert committee.
“(Scientific institutions at the level of NMC) are assuming such persons are suffering from ‘Gender Identity Disorder’! And these are persons who are supposed to be looking at facts as facts,” Justice Venkatesh remarked.
The Court was also informed that the NMC had not yet amended its regulations to classify conversion therapy as professional misconduct. Although revised regulations were introduced in 2023, they are still awaiting official notification.
Justice Venkatesh suggested an interim solution by modifying the existing 2004 regulations so that conversion therapy is officially treated as misconduct until the new regulations come into effect.
“2004 regulations are in force. Therefore, till the new regulations come into force, steps can be taken to amend the existing regulations and to incorporate conversion therapy as professional misconduct,” the Court stated.
The case began in 2021 when a lesbian couple sought protection from their parents, who opposed their relationship. Over time, Justice Venkatesh expanded the case’s scope, issuing directives to improve LGBTQIA+ rights.
During the latest hearing, the Tamil Nadu government informed the Court about its plan to introduce two separate policies—one for transgender and intersex individuals and another for the broader LGBTQIA+ community. However, the Court questioned why a unified policy could not be implemented and requested a detailed explanation.
The Court directed the State to submit its draft welfare policies, allowing all stakeholders to provide input. This, the judge explained, would help in shaping a well-structured law that is less likely to be challenged in court.
Before concluding, Justice Venkatesh reiterated his commitment to the case and its potential to bring real change.
“I will not get tired, I may get frustrated. I may lament, but that means I am building up energy inside. This is something I find potential for change. Bringing changes of this nature is very difficult. But look at the number of persons helping, that is our strength,” he stated.
The case will be heard again on February 17, 2025, where further discussions on LGBTQIA+ rights and policy formation will continue.
