“Marriage equality cannot be achieved through the courts alone,” says lawyer Rohin Bhat | India News – Times of India

Rohin Bhatt – who represented two couples in the marriage equality case in the Supreme Court last year – reflects on this duality in his debut book ‘The Urban Elite versus Union of India’. In an interview with Sharmila Ganesan Ram, the 26-year-old lawyer talks about the need to recalibrate the LGBTQIA+ movement
As a lawyer representing two couples in the marriage equality case, what was the lead-up to the ruling like?
The wait for judgment had been long and hard. It felt like we were holding our breath. There was clearly apprehension and anxiety about the outcome, as it was certain that the implications of the verdict would be far-reaching, not only for the queer community, but also for others who do not enjoy social sanctions, such as inter-caste and inter-caste communities. lovers of the faith, as the Special Marriage Act was brought into question. The verdict was disappointing, yet in line with recent trends in the Supreme Court and the judiciary, where the courts have failed to act as an anti-majoritarian force. However, the loss was much more personal because I knew it wasn’t just a ‘case’, but one that would deeply affect me and my life as well.
Is that why the story interweaves your personal experiences with the legal?
I think when you talk about the law you often do so in a neutral way, as lofty ideals or formulaic principles to be applied to a given set of facts. But the law is not: heart, emotions and psyche play a major role in the way cases are decided. In the marriage equality case, a person, and their community, was unwittingly the subject of the law. The emotions during the hearing were also frenzied and all-consuming after the verdict. Not only was this book a way to channel those emotions as a therapeutic exercise, but it also spoke to the queer rights movement in India.
The book attributes some of the progress made by queer rights activism in India to the work of AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA) in the 1990s.
ABVA presents an early model of a social movement that was inclusive and cohesive. It had no financing, no office. There were members aged between 24 and 55, ranging from residents of some of Delhi’s poshest colonies to street dwellers. Their activism was one of the main forces behind the repeal of the 1989 AIDS (Prevention) Bill. The bill allowed for isolation, forced testing and interrogation of people living with HIV, and lacked any provision to protect confidentiality or guaranteed protection of a fair trial. Their reports tell us about the struggles of building a movement. After 2018 and Navtej, I think the queer movement has become much more legalized. Winning cases is easier than winning hearts and minds. But also because we were political orphans before the 2024 elections. There are few political parties that openly support gay rights. Fortunately, that changed after 2018.
“Queer liberation cannot and should not be achieved through lawsuits alone,” you write. Why do you put on your black dress and appear in court every day?
The belief that the Constitution and the courts can work for the proverbial “butcher, baker, and candlestick maker.” I don’t think it is these big cases that make the practice of law meaningful, but the smaller ones, which often don’t make the front page of the newspapers, do. Receiving a protective order from an abusive birth family is an example of this. But to say that we will achieve equality through the courts may be a shortsighted conclusion. Unless we work hard at building movements, changing attitudes, and politically lobbying the state, I don’t think queer liberation can be achieved.
Many argue that marriage itself is a flawed institution. Can Marriage Equality Liberate the Queer Community?
Marriage, of course, replicates caste and class hierarchies, and same-sex marriage will do the same. That said, there is nuance to it. Our legal system recognizes relationships in three ways: blood, marriage and adoption. If homosexuals now want to have rights over their property and their partner, marriage becomes a legitimate legal necessity. There is a case for a radical legal reinterpretation of the way we view relationships, such as choosing our families, but that is a long-term project. In the meantime, our rights cannot wait, and marriage is a way to ensure that partners have rights over birth families, which are often a place of violence.