Devu G. Petitioner(s) v. State Of Kerala And Others (s).

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Kerala, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the release of her adult partner (“the detenu”) who was allegedly being confined by her parents (respondents 4 and 5). On 13 January 2023 the High Court directed the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Kollam, to record the detenu’s statement at her parents’ residence and to produce her in court only if the statement revealed illegal detention. On 2 February 2023 the High Court further ordered the detenu to attend counselling sessions over the next several days and listed the matter for 16 February 2023.

The petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court issued notice, stayed the High Court’s orders, and, by way of an ad-interim arrangement, directed respondents 4 and 5 to produce the detenu before the Family Court at Kollam for an independent interview by Ms. Saleena V. G. Nair (Senior Judicial Officer and Member of the Supreme Court’s E-Committee). A sealed-cover report of the interview is to be submitted to the Supreme Court, and the matter is listed for 17 February 2023.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the detenu is being illegally detained by her parents against her wishes.
2. Whether the High Court’s directions—(a) to record the detenu’s statement at her parents’ home through the District Legal Services Authority, and (b) to mandate counselling sessions—were appropriate in the circumstances of an adult same-sex relationship.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner and the detenu are in a consensual same-sex relationship; any inquiry conducted in the parents’ home cannot be free from influence or coercion.
• Requiring the detenu to attend counselling is fundamentally erroneous because it undermines her autonomy and treats the relationship as needing “correction”.

No specific arguments by the respondents are recorded in the opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court found it necessary to ensure that the detenu’s wishes are ascertained in a neutral and coercion-free environment. Concluding that the High Court’s method—having the statement recorded in the parental home and ordering counselling—might compromise the voluntariness of the detenu’s statement, the Court:

• Stayed the High Court’s orders dated 13 January 2023 and 2 February 2023, along with all further proceedings before the High Court.
• Directed respondents 4 and 5 to produce the detenu before the Family Court, Kollam.
• Appointed a senior judicial officer, Ms. Saleena V. G. Nair, to interview the detenu in the presence of the Principal Judge, Family Court, ensuring an atmosphere free from parental influence.
• Ordered that a sealed-cover report be submitted, reflecting the detenu’s wishes and stating whether she is voluntarily with her parents or under illegal detention.

The analysis is primarily aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty of an adult and ensuring that any subsequent judicial decision rests on her freely-expressed choice.

Holding and Implications

AD INTERIM STAY GRANTED AND PRODUCTION OF DETENU DIRECTED.

Immediate Effect: The High Court’s contested orders are in abeyance; the detenu must be produced before a neutral forum for an independent determination of her wishes.

Broader Implications: While no new legal precedent is explicitly laid down, the order underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the autonomy of adults in consensual same-sex relationships and to ensuring that inquiries into alleged illegal detention occur in an environment free from coercion.