Adhila Nassrin argues that, after deciding to live together, they sought refuge at a Safe Home in Kozhikode with the support of the NGO Vanaja Collective, before informing their parents.
Additionally, the case underscores the need for stricter consequences for queerphobic behavior and deliberate disregard of queer community concerns by law enforcement.
Fathima Noora recounted being pressured by a mullah to conform to religious beliefs and engage in a heterosexual relationship, leading to mental and physical distress.
[5][9][10] Although the National Medical Commission had deemed conversion therapy as 'professional misconduct' in response to a directive from the Madras High Court in the case of S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police, it's important to note that AYUSH practitioners, who practice alternative medicine systems like Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa, and Homeopathy, operate beyond the regulatory scope of the National Medical Commission.
[5][9] The current case underscores the necessity for legal action against practitioners of conversion therapy who claim to alter sexual orientations or gender identity through their methods in India.
It provided initial shelter and robust legal and moral backing in their fight for the fundamental human right to live as partners.
In cases where the family, traditionally a source of support, becomes the abuser, alternative networks like the Vanaja collective play a crucial role in assisting queer individuals.
[5] While some state-driven initiatives, like shelter homes, training, and scholarships, target transgender individuals in Kerala, Adhila Nasarin and Fathima Noora's experience underscores the necessity for expanded governmental mechanisms providing comprehensive legal and social support for the entire queer spectrum.
Adequate state backing for non-governmental and community-based organizations should form part of these endeavors to safeguard the rights of the queer community.
[4] Subsequently, the court was informed that both Adhila Nassrin and Fathima Noora were present at the Binanipuram Police Station alongside their respective parents.
While the court acted based on the petitioner's and alleged detainee's informed consent in both instances, differing from the Adhila Nasarin v. State Commissioner of Police case, the Bench in the Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police case laid a robust legal groundwork by citing legal precedents and constitutional principles and rights.