close
close

‘Even non-binary people, transgender men can be pregnant’

On May 6, 2024, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, recalled its earlier order terminating the pregnancy of a 14-year-old rape survivor after her parents expressed a desire to keep the baby due to health concerns. The court emphasized the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy and the crucial importance of the pregnant person’s consent in abortion decisions, especially if it differs from the guardian’s opinion. It clarified that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP) does not allow interference with the personal choice of a pregnant “person” regarding the termination of pregnancy. The judgment provided guidelines for medical boards, emphasizing the need to evaluate both physical and emotional well-being and to prioritize fundamental rights over procedural delays. The case involved a 14-year-old girl who had become pregnant after being sexually abused, whose request for an abortion was initially rejected by the Bombay High Court.

In the 22-page judgment, written by CJI Chandrachud, the term ‘pregnant person’ or ‘persons’ appears 42 times, including once in a footnote on page 12. The bench, which also includes Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, clarified: “We use the term ‘pregnant person’ and recognize that in addition to cisgender women, pregnancy can also be experienced by some non-binary people and transgender men among other gender identities.”

How woke is CJI Chandrachud – a look at his previous statements/judgments

The statement about “pregnant persons” is not the first time that the CJI has come into contact with woke language; he has already shown this in his previous statements. Here are a few:

Gay marriage

On October 17, 2023, while unanimously agreeing that the right to marry was not a fundamental right, the five-judge bench comprising the CJI, Justices SK Kaul, SR Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha , by a majority of 3:2, ruled against the right of same-sex couples to form or adopt civil unions. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was in the minority position. The court refrained from amending the Special Marriage Law and deferred the issue of marriage equality for queer couples to the jurisdiction of Parliament. CJI Chandrachud said he stood by his minority position in supporting civil unions for queer couples as they stand today. “Sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote on the Constitution.”

He had also said: “It’s not about what your genitals are. It’s much more complex, that’s the point. So even if the special marriage law says man and woman, the idea of ​​a man and a woman is not absolutely based on genitals.”

Decriminalizing adultery

Justice DY Chandrachud was part of the five-member bench when the Supreme Court struck down an 1860 colonial-era law. This law punished a man for engaging in sexual relations with a married woman without her husband’s consent. “Physicality is an individual choice,” Chandrachud emphasized. He noted that the law arose from the idea that a woman loses her individuality through marriage, and further asserted that “adultery is a relic of the past.”

Justice Chandrachud agreed with the majority opinion, which invalidated Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He emphasized: “The idea that a woman is ‘submissive’, or worse, ‘naive’ has no legitimacy in the discourse of a liberal constitution. It is deeply insulting to equality and destructive to the dignity of women. Based on this stereotype, Section 497 only criminalizes the accused man.” as he spoke his mind.

Decriminalize homosexuality

In September 2018, a five-judge bench in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v Union Of India unanimously declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code invalid, as Justice Chandrachud noted in his separate concurring opinion: “by punishing sexual conduct between consenting adults, Section 377 restricted the basic freedom of Indian citizens belonging to sexual minorities under an outdated and anachronistic colonial-era law – forcing them to live in hiding, in fear and as second-class citizens.”

Sabarimala judgment

In the Sabarimala case in September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled by a 4:1 majority to strike down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act. In his opinion, Justice Chandrachud stated: “A claim for the exclusion of women from religious worship, even if grounded in religious texts, is subordinate to the constitutional values ​​of freedom, dignity and equality. Exclusionary practices are contrary to constitutional morality.”

With this statement, he unnecessarily tackled age-old practices that hurt several Hindu women devotees of Swami Ayyappa.

Praise for Suraj Yengde

CJI Chandrachud seems so enamored with Hinduphobic and ‘subordinate activist’ Suraj Yengde that he even quoted from Yengde’s book ‘Caste Matters’ in 2021. Chandrachud was addressing the 13th BRAmbedkar Memorial Lecture, 2021 on ‘Conceptualising Marginalisation: Agency, Assertion & Personhood’ by the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, Delhi & Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, South Asia.

The same Suraj Yengde mentioned the asura Mahishasura as his ancestor, and called him a “naga Buddhist king”

It is noteworthy that Chandrachud used “pronouns” throughout the lecture. Here’s an example.

If a CJI is so woke, so careful and persistent about using the right pronouns, and gets the woke people to use those pronouns and believe in this wokeness, it seems only a matter of time before the woke agenda, pushed by the leftists is perpetuated, Bharat completely hits.