CHINMAYEE JENA V. STATE OF ODISHA WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 57 OF 2020

INTRODUCTION

The Chinmayee Jena vs. State of Odisha (2020) which is synonymously used also as Sonu Krishna Jena vs. State of Odisha, is a key judgement delivered by the Odisha High Court which put emphasis on the constitutional rights of transgender individuals and the recognition of same gender live-in relationships. When Rashmi, his partner was forcibly taken away by her family, then the case arose as Sonu Krishna Jena filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the violation of their personal freedom and right to live together. The court affirmed the right to gender identity and autonomy and acknowledged Sonu’s self-male identity. The legality of consensual live-in relationships was also recognised by the court regardless of gender with citing the key precedents like NALSA v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. Importance of personal liberty, dignity, and non-discrimination was highlighted in this case, reinforcing the protection of LGBTQ+ rights under the Constitution of India. Gender equality and human rights in India can be achieved through this case as it conveys significant context regarding the same. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The instant case, as stated above is a landmark judgement by the Odisha High court that addressed critical issues concerned with rights of transgender individuals in India, gender identity and personal autonomy. The petitioner was named Chinmayee Jena at birth but later he identified as a transgender man. His partner, Rashmi and he chose to live together in an apartment in Bhubaneswar, Odisha which affirms their commitment towards each other in a livein relationship. 

On April 9, 2020, Rashmi was taken away forcibly by her mother and uncle from their shared residence and acted against her will. Seeking assistance, Sonu filed complaints with the local police stations in Bhubaneswar and Jajpur. However, his pleas remained unanswered. Later in time, it was revealed that the family of Rashmi had coercively arranged her marriage with another person and that to without her consent. Sonu filed a writ petition of Habeas Corpus in response to this unlawful act and sought court’s intervention to ensure Rashmi’s protection and her right to live with him freely. 

On 17^th August, 2020, the Superintendent of Police of Jajpur was redirected by the court to ascertain and find out Rashmi’s wishes regarding residence and relationship. The matter was deferred by three days despite Rashmi rigidly expressing her desire to reunite with Sonu as early as possible. Eventually, the case was heard and the court recognised the right to cohabitation. Irrespective of gender discrimination, the judgement emphasized the recognition of Sonu’s selfidentified male gender and upheld and upheld the rights of adults to live together. It also cited precedents like NALSA vs. UOI and Navtej Singh Johar vs. UOI. The court provided police protection to the couple and prevented Rashmi’s family from interfering with them. 

ISSUES INVOLVED

This involved several key issues which centred on personal autonomy, constitutional rights, and the recognition of transgender and same-gender relationships. The issues are as follows:

1. Right to personal liberty: Whether the coercive separation of Rashmi from Sonu Krishna Jena, her partner, violated her fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
2. Recognition of Gender identity: Whether self-identified masculine gender of Sonu Krishna Jena, as a transgender man, shall be legally recognised and respected in the court’s proceedings.
3. Unlawful detention: Whether Rashmi’s rigid removal by her family amounted to unlawful detention, justifying the filing of a Habeas Corpus writ.
4. Right to Live-In Relationship: Whether adults, disregarding their gender identity or any sexual orientation, have the legal and constitutional right to live together in a live-in relationship without interference from family or society.
5. Police accountability: Whether the police’s inaction in acknowledging Sonu’s problem and his complaints reflected a failure to uphold the provisions of constitutional rights?
6. Protection from family interference: Whether constitution guarantees dignity and autonomy in cases of forced marriages or familial coercion.

JUDGEMENT

In the instant matter of Chinmayee Jena vs. State of Odisha And Others, the Orissa HC took into consideration issues that were quintessential to gender identity and equality, personal autonomy and the rights of individuals in same-gender live-in relationships. Chinmayee, who was born as a female, later identified herself as male and preferred male pronouns. He was in a live-in relationship with Rashmi (a pseudonym), who resided together in a apartment in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. She was forcibly separated by her family from Sonu Krishna and the petitioner filed complaints. Thus, the above stated issues came into picture. 

A division bench which constituted of Justice S. K. Mishra and Justice Savitri Ratho delivered a comprehensive judgement which recognised the rights of the petitioner and his partner.

The court rereferred to him with male pronouns throughout the proceedings, thus unequivocally acknowledging petitioner’s self-identified male personality. It reflected contemporary understandings of gender identity as this recognition was grounded in the principles of personal autonomy and self expression. The court cited the landmark case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA) case, emphasizing the right to self-determination as an integral part of personal autonomy. It affirmed that the universal human rights of all citizens regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation are inviolable and must be protected under the law by further invoking the Yogyakarta Principles. 

The bench referred to the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India which was a landmark decision in decriminalising consensual same-sex relationships and the court also affirmed that such criminalisation violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 21 (Protection of life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The court stated that there is full right to choose one’s partner and it is a fundamental liberty, with also highlighting that LGBTQ= individuals are entitled to the full spectrum of constitutional rights. 

The court firmly upheld the couple’s right to decide their sexual preferences in this context, including the right to live together as consenting adults in a live-in relationship. It ruled that this right is free from interference by family or societal norms and that; it is protected under the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. 

Consequently, the court directed that Rashmi’s mother and family should not prevent the couple from living together, thus allowing the writ of habeas corpus. To ensure their safety and prevent any further coercion or harassment, it ordered that the couple be provided with police protection. In addition to that, while ensuring her well-being and emotional support, the court instructed that Rashmi should be allowed to maintain communication with her family both through phone and in person.

Justice Savitri Ratho, in her concurring opinion, acknowledged the societal pressures and familial challenges that the couple might possibly face. She suggested that Rashmi’s family could seek support under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 if needed as she stressed the importance of maintain familial bonds while respecting individual autonomy. However, according to her, the paramount consideration was the harmonious and protected life of the couple without fear or interference of any sort. 

This judgement reinforced the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and personal liberty and marked a significant step in advancing the rights of transgender individuals and same-sex couples in India. The court’s decision marked a powerful affirmation of the right to choose one’s partner, right to love and live freely without societal or familial coercion. 

ANALYSIS

This case of Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha serves as a pivotal judgement that strengthened the legal and constitutional rights of transgender individuals. The Orissa High Court’s decision supported by landmark rulings like NALSA v. Union of India and its recognition of petitioner’s self identified gender was quite a crucial affirmation to the fundamental right to self-determination. Towards safeguarding individual dignity and freedom, the court’s directives to grant police protection and prevent familial interference was vital.

Nevertheless, certain gaps remain while the verdict was progressive. Without providing a comprehensive framework for future cases involving similar issues, the court just addressed and provided the immediate needs of the couple without providing a comprehensive framework for future involving cases of similar nature. Had it established clear legal guidelines for handling forced marriages or familial coercion, the judgement could have succeeded in setting a stronger precedent. 

Future judgements could incorporate detailed protocols to enhance legal protections such as including mandatory counselling for families and stricter measures against coercion and discrimination which would also ensure long-term safeguards for LGBTQ+ rights. 

CONCLUSION

Having recognised the rights of LGBTQIA+ rights in India, the Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha (2020) decision marks a crucial milestone. The Orissa High court emphasized the fundamental right to self determination and dignity which rooted in precedents like NALSA case and Navtej Singh case which sets a progressive tone for future cases. 

It is a first in legal history- the right of transgender persons to enter into live-in relationships with partners of their choice regardless of partner’s gender. This factor makes this judgement a groundbreaking one. This ruling establishes a strong precedent for cohabitation and partnership protections and strengthens the framework for LGBTQIA+ rights. It is to be remembered that the judiciary plays a vital role in shaping more inclusive society and the journey towards equality is ongoing. 

REFERENCES

1. Sonu Krishna Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors., Trans Law Website, https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case–law/sonu–krishna–jena–vs–state–of–odisha–others/ (last visited Mar. 29, 2025).
2. Sonu Krishna Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors., Trans Law Website, https://translaw.clpr.org.in/wp–content/uploads/2020/09/Sonu–pdf (last visited Mar. 29, 2025).

3. NALSA v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 1 (India).
4. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India).