This opinion was published in Deccan Herald on August 16, 2022.
About the Authors
Kanav N Sahgal is Samvidhaan Fellowship Programme Manager at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and Communications Manager at Nyaaya. He holds a Master's in Development from Azim Premji University, Bengaluru and specializes in global gender politics and the law- with a focus on gay rights and abortion rights. Kanav also has extensive experience in the domains of development communications, programme management, human resources management, social media management, content writing, and on-ground advocacy. He has worked for NGOs, not-for-profits, and for-profits engaged in the following domains: international development (monitoring and evaluation), environment and social consulting, student leadership development, anti-human trafficking, and LGBTQIA+ advocacy. Kanav writes extensively for the media and is a regular columnist for national and international platforms as diverse as The Hindu, Deccan Herald, The Diplomat Magazine, Cosmopolitan India, JURIST, The LSE Review of Books, and The Cambridge Global Affair among others.
Explained: Advocate Karuna Nundy’s significant arguments on marriage equality
Advocate Karuna Nundy presents two constitutionally compliant principles to balance the interests of women and transgender people in the marriage equality debate and demonstrates how the government of India’s core argument against marriage equality is weak based on the government’s own past record
Revisiting American Queer Legal History
Lessons from Baehr v. Lewin (1993) and United States v. Windsor (2013) that bolster the demand for judicial intervention in the ongoing marriage equality case in India
Whose (Marriage) Rights are These Anyway?
Privacy & Cookies Policy