'Rajyotsava Award of Little Value When 'Eunuch' Stays'

Derogatory term must go says state awardee; law minister promises to act but confusion over amendment stays
Updated on
2 min read

BENGALURU: Transgender activist Akkai Padmashali, conferred with the Rajyotsava award last year, feels the honour does not hold value as the government has failed to protect the rights of sexual minorities.

Karnataka State Sexual Minorities Forum has been fighting to revoke Section 36A of the Karnataka State Police Act, which says police have to keep tabs on the “objectionable activities of eunuchs”. It empowers police officers to keep a register of “eunuchs” living in their jurisdiction, who commit offences such as robbery and kidnapping. They can also punish “unnatural acts”.

On January 12, the Chief Justice of Karnataka heard a petition in this regard and said six months were required to make amendments to the act. However, whether the amendment will revoke the entire Section of the Act or merely substitute “eunuch” with “persons” seems ambiguous.

Last month, Akkai Padmashali and Jeeva, an organisation fighting for the rights of sexual minorities, applied to implead as parties to the petition that has a long history. The petition, originally filed in January 2015 by Karnataka State Minorities Forum, had gone into cold storage.

Law Minister T B Jayachandra assured them that the

entire section would be scrapped when they met him on January 11. But public prosecutor Devdas said the word “eunuch” should be replaced with “persons”.

“Who is a eunuch? Somebody who is biologically a man and has gone in for castration, somebody who is impotent,” says Akkai. And while she takes objection to this term, she feels replacing it with “persons” might not help the transgender community’s cause.

“We want the section to be revoked to remove the fear of finding a house in a locality without having to register ourselves and asked to provide documentation,” says Umesh Uma of Jeeva. “The police might still find a way to harass us or other sexual minority groups using the section.”

Moreover, when there are plenty of laws for the general public why should any sexual monority community be singled out, Umesh asks.

However, Akkai finds the government’s “dual stand

taxing”. “This law is a violation of our rights and goes against freedom of expression,” she says.

“The Chief Justice also said meanwhile, the third gender must not harassed, and the

police should leave them alone,” said Advocate Jayna Kothari. Section 36 A was introduced through an amendment in 2011.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com