Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18991076 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866901061967544320 |
|---|---|
| author | Manya Goel |
| author_facet | Manya Goel |
| contents | The ruling of the Madras High Court in Arunkumar and Sreeja v Inspector General of Registration is a defining one in the Indian family law jurisprudence. It is the first-time recognition in India of any Hindu union between cisgender man and transgender woman as valid under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA). By doing that, the Court redefined the statutory meaning of the term bride in a way that is aligned with the constitutional provisions of equality, autonomy, and dignity under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Court balanced the personal interpretation of the law and transformative constitutionalism through the application of the rationale of National Legal Services Authority v Union of India , Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India , and Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India . The factual matrix followed, the judicial reasoning, and the critical analysis of the effects of the ruling on gender justice and the personal-law reform are pursued in this commentary. It contends that even though Arunkumar is a major inclusionary move, it also reveals the frailty of committing to judicial creativity to achieve substantive equality for transgender people before statutory amendment. |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18991076 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Expanding the Meaning of "Bride": Arunkumar and Sreeja v Inspector General of Registration (2019) Manya Goel The ruling of the Madras High Court in Arunkumar and Sreeja v Inspector General of Registration is a defining one in the Indian family law jurisprudence. It is the first-time recognition in India of any Hindu union between cisgender man and transgender woman as valid under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA). By doing that, the Court redefined the statutory meaning of the term bride in a way that is aligned with the constitutional provisions of equality, autonomy, and dignity under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Court balanced the personal interpretation of the law and transformative constitutionalism through the application of the rationale of National Legal Services Authority v Union of India , Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India , and Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India . The factual matrix followed, the judicial reasoning, and the critical analysis of the effects of the ruling on gender justice and the personal-law reform are pursued in this commentary. It contends that even though Arunkumar is a major inclusionary move, it also reveals the frailty of committing to judicial creativity to achieve substantive equality for transgender people before statutory amendment. |
| title | Expanding the Meaning of "Bride": Arunkumar and Sreeja v Inspector General of Registration (2019) |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18991076 |