This opinion was published in Varta on June 27, 2022.
About the Authors
Shreyashi is a Research Fellow at Vidhi, and works in the area of public health. Her interests include public health, gender & sexuality, mental health, labour, and migration. She completed her B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) from the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata in 2016. Prior to joining Vidhi, she was engaged as a consultant to the District Administration, Ranchi. She worked on public health, nutrition, and education in mining-affected and other under-served areas of the district. As part of this engagement, she drafted the Guidelines on COVID-19 Preparedness and Control in Ranchi - and coordinated planning and implementation of health and social support mechanisms (domestic violence, mental health, migrant workers’ rights) during the pandemic. Apart from this, she has close to three years' experience as a researcher on open science and knowledge sharing with the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition at National Law University, Delhi. She co-authored the Open Science India Report, which seeks to guide government/ institutional policies for implementation of open science practices and inclusive research & knowledge ecosystems, especially in the Indian context.
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