LANGUAGE AS DIGNITY: THE QUEER JURISPRUDENCE OF INDIA
INTRODUCTION- LEXICONS OF LEGITIMACY
What happens when the language that wields identity becomes the very tool for stripping off dignity?
The Madras High Court publicly grappled with its unease with the term “queer” in a watershed decision of May 2025 because of its lexical connotation of “strangeness” and “oddness.”. This unusual judicial contemplation not only illuminated semantic discomfort, but also indicated the very importantcrucial question of how language can shape lived experiences, afford or deny social legitimacy, and confer or refuse legal status for LGBTQIA+ individuals. This article traces the journey of “queer” from a negative pejorative, back to a politically potent affirmation of resistance, regeneration, and solidarity. This article demonstrates how the courts are struggling with semantic disjunctions and policy gaps that facilitate the realiszation (or non-realiszation) of constitutional promises for LGBTQIA+ people.
Language, of course, is not politically neutral. It is often a silent repository of our deepest biases, outlining social hierarchies and presuppositions below the surface of our mundane conversations. “There is hardly any legal principle more difficult to fathom in law than that of human dignity”, yet, at its core, any notion of that slippery concept must encompass a right to be responded to only in terms that signal, rather than negate, one’s being. It This becomes all even more the more important for minority groups such as LGBTQIA+.
For over a century, LGBTQIA+ individuals have been prosecuted using “anti-sodomy” or “public indecency” lawsFor over a century, LGBTQIA+ individuals have been prosecuted using “anti-sodomy” or “public indecency” laws as the pretencse , and for non-gender- conforming behaviour that deliberately and defiantly did not conform to heterosexuality. Stories aboutAccounts of public scrutiny, particularly those related to LGBTQIA+ individuals, still exist today , and even after homosexuality was taken off the DSM list of disordered states in 1973. The fact that over 50% of adults who self-identify as LGBTQIA+ have been discriminated against or have members of the LGBTQIA+ community harassed in public spacesThe fact that over 50% of adults who self-identify as LGBTQIA+ have been discriminated against or have members of the LGBTQIA+ community harassed in public spaces makes this concern even more acute. The legal and cultural legacy of discrimination has also historically informed a lexical repository where names attributed to these lives become steeped in historical and legal weight.
The article argues for continued vigilance and inclusive legal language to unshackle legal language from narrow definitional constraints, normative compliance, and surrounding ungenerous language that obstructs the potential for justice. At a time when semantics finds itself at the intersection of legal transformation and social recognition, this article reminds us that words matter, and that it is not inconceivable that they can make the difference between marginaliszation and dignity.
METAMORPHOSIS OF THE WORD “QUEER”
The word “queer” has an extensive, radical history, from conflict, and resistance to renewal, and renewal. In fact, when the term “queer” was first created, the word had nothing to do with sexuality at all. “Queer” had, and still has to some extent, meanings associated with being strange, fluid, and ambiguous, or a non-normative being. With this semantic slide, “queer” acquired an easy demeanour – a label, a stain or a derogation meant to erase that which deviated from rigid societal expectations.
Eventually, this derogatory term began to take on a new meaning which opposed an oppressive worldview rather than perpetuating one. The first known use of “queer”, in connection to sexuality, is found in the Oxford English Dictionary from 1894, and it was a departing moment that led to a significant shift in meaning. In a more recent intervention, Webster’s New World College Dictionary (fifth edition) defined “queer” as a term of derogation for homosexual; it described it as “still chiefly a slang expression of contempt or derision but lately used by some academics and homosexual activists as a descriptive term without judgment.”.
This historic development opened a door to resistance, and offered an opportunity for people to self-identify themselves and in their own words. “Queer” transitioned from being a slur, to complex form of identification, and ultimately the reclamation by the community, turning it into an affirmation of resistance. “Queer” was embraced entirely by people who resign from prescribed classifications of gender, sexuality, and expressions of identity. “Queer” deconstructed quintessential social structures separating masculinity and femininity in a way that actively destabilisze heteronormativity.
Queer came to represent defiance, a fierce example of solidarity and a steadfast dedication to life and dignity, during the AIDS crisis and the growing struggle for gay rights. Queer It was chosen as a self-identification by some, a word that described their lived experience outside the limits of a hostile society’s norms they abided by. Popa-Wyatt resonates with great significance here: “Reclamation is a form of socio-political protest that seeks to re-shape oppressive social practices by controlling what can be done with words.”Popa-Wyatt resonates with great significance here: “Reclamation is a form of socio-political protest that seeks to reshape oppressive social practices by controlling what can be done with words”.
However, it would be reductive to claim “queer” as merely a western transplantation. Even before colonial criminaliszation, the subcontinent had witnessed vocabularies like ‘hijra’, ‘kothi’, ‘panthi’, ‘aravani’, ‘jogappa’, and ‘shiv-shakti’. These were primarily marginaliszed through moral codes like Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The continued struggle by Indian and other Global South queer scholars places the contemporary usage of the word “queer” beyond universaliszed identity, as a term under which diverse local vocabularies seek protection.
“Queer”, initially a pejorative term, now rests in ambiguity, a word created in resistance, reformed through solidarity, and still in a struggle with its contingent destiny. Is queer a slur that sustains marginaliszation that obscures the possibility of inclusivity and abandons dignity? Or is it an empowering affirmation, or a form of reclamation that is worthy of framing a new pattern of identity and justice? As the social fabric stretched to incorporate such ideas, it became pertinent for the courts to acknowledge the unavoidable,; to recognisze naming practices that shook the core of very availability and possibility of rights.
JUDICIAL RESPONSE
While “queer” does capture a category under Indian law, it does not have a definition, but is notoriously not employed;, rather, it is discussed in judgment as a new development indicative of change , concerning awareness and access to LGBTQIA+ rights. The Madras High Court recently commented on their discomfort with the term “queer” as follows: “For a homosexual individual, their sexual orientation is natural and normal. There is nothing strange about such inclinations. Why then should they be labelled queer?For a homosexual individual, their sexual orientation is natural and normal. There is nothing strange about such inclinations. Why then should they be labelled queer?”. It overtly conveys that the law requires respect in terms with of greater emphasis on linguistic self-identification.
This discomfort with language can be seen alongside several judgments that bolster the rights and personhood of the community. In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court held that transgender individuals, including hijras and eunuchs, have the right to be legally recogniszed as a “third gender,”, upholding that gender identity is part of personal autonomy and dignity under Article 21, and that constitutional assurances of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, 16, and freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) apply in full force to them. The Supreme Court declared Section 377 unconstitutional in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). This was a projection, not just at the decriminaliszation of homosexuality, but greater affirmations of linguistic self-identification. Moving towards the Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Trinetra Gummaraju v. State of Karnataka (2022) judgements expanded the definitions of family relationship structures and highlighted much-expanded inclusive types of accommodations , the education institution needed to provide to transgender students on enrolment. Together, these judgments reflect a fundamental turn away from more ancient understandings and open the way to basic rights and inclusion for the community under Indian lLaw.
In S. Sushma and Ors v. Director General of Police and Ors (2021), the Supreme Court asked the government to establish guidelines and create a glossary of words and phrases which respect and honour others , and are not stigmatiszing . This could also be interpreted as a policy shift towards helping organiszations to establish an institutional culture of inclusion, and benevolence. The Supreme Court also advocated for systemic policy measures such as gender-neutral washrooms and sensitiszed training for judicial personnel to develop more nuanced and sympathetic notions of the law’s application.
While these judgments actually drive basic progression, but there exists an even quieter hesitation. In the face of recent judgments like Supriyo v. Union of India where the Supreme Court acknowledged LGBTQIA+ relationships as significant but declined to extend marriage recognition, such semantic affirmation risks being merely symbolic or performative in the absence of enforceable entitlements. While judicial language may soften surrounding social hostility, a but lack of structural remedies may lead to rhetorical attribution of dignity. Hence, inclusive language should not be considered as an endpoint but rather as a condition for substantive equality.
SEMANTIC SENSITIVITIES AND LINGUISTIC RESPONSIBILITY
Naming is never a neutral application; language defines identities not only as labels but also in terms of dignity, dismissal, and denial. Microaggressions often hide within language, whether micro-assaults, microinsults, or microinvalidations, showing up in seemingly harmless phrases that, in effect, undermine the constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 21. Even well-intended but thoughtless labels can contribute to exclusion.
Language sensibilities go way beyond heated discussions about the use of the label “queer“, they highlight how words can affirm or inaccurately portray identity. One of the most nefarious lies appears with terms like “sexual preference” that imply gay is a choice; when we substitute it with “sexual orientation“, we affirm that identity is innate, not an option , and thus well within the protection against discrimination under Article 15. Similarly, the phrase “sex reassignment surgery” has to be replaced with the term “gender-affirming” surgery, as it emphasiszes autonomy and affirmation.
Using “admitted homosexual” would be seen as assigning blame or questioning honesty or secrecy. Preferred terms like “openly gay“, “openly lesbian“, or “out” would offer support without stigma. Likewise, “real” or “biological” man/woman delegitimiszes trans identities; the respectful substitution is “cisgender“. Using “transgendered“, “transvestite“, or “tranny” are is disrespectful and outdated; “transgender person” is both descriptive and accurate. Importantly, “transgender” is an adjective, not a noun.
Additionally, “gay lifestyle” implies identity is equal to behaviour, and “special rights” implies equality is excessive. Conversely, terms such as “equal protection” or “fairness and equality” recast the issue to as human rights. Even “gender nonconforming” is on the way to being superseded by affirming terms like “gender fluid,”, “nonbinary,”, or “gender expansive.”.
In every case, language does not reflect reality; it produces it. Chosen language in this sense, elects whether someone is seen, heard, and respected, or erased. Language is thereafter not peripheral in nature, but rather central to constitutionalism, since it dictates the applicability of guarantees.
(Section inspired by sources 1, 2)
CONCLUSION
Language is not peripheral to the struggle for LGBTQIA+ equality, it is integral to the negotiation of rights, recognition, and respect. Throughout this article, it has been shown how language shifts practically from stigmatiszing language to reclaimed language. While some see it to be a fluid and transgressive term, for others it seems to be linguistically discordant or exclusionary, a dilemma which, just recently, the High Court of Madras had to navigate in its discomfiture drawn in part from the word queer.
Additionally, Indian courts rejecting pathologiszing language and approbating dignified terminology represent a substantial shift toward institutional respect. The judicial hesitation with the word “queer” needs to result in linguistic calibration. The courts should prefer terminology like “LGBTQIA+ persons” typically when concerned with conferring rights and discussing legal doctrines, while allowing the word “queer” itself to paint a self-affirmed category, discussing reclamation and critiquing semantics beyond the arc of strict legal nomenclature. It is important that the latter is not used substituting to substitute the former. Progressive jurisprudence and hesitant language remain mutually exclusive;, hence, dignified language becomes necessary for sustaining the progress.
Ultimately, words do not culminate in nothingness; they can be means of affirmation and negation. Where legal language is negligent, the possibility of alienation is amplified; where it is purposeful, legitimacy is signified. These carry the potential of strongly shaping the trajectory of queer rights in India. As this conversation unfolds, it becomes evident that: to use the correct words is not merely a function of respect but, rather, a function of constitutional recognition. In that function, dignity is not simply preserved;, it is rendered intelligible to law and society alike.
