The Navtej Johar ruling read down Section 377, decriminalising same-sex relationships and recognising LGBTQI+ individuals as equal citizens. In Supriyo v. Union of India, the Supreme Court directed the government to take affirmative steps to protect queer persons, like setting up helplines and shelter homes, and conducting police sensitisation programmes.

Yet, on the ground, these protections remain largely absent. There are no functional state-run helplines for queer individuals facing violence. Shelter homes are nearly non-existent, leaving those fleeing abusive households with nowhere to go. Police sensitisation remains woefully inadequate, with law enforcement officers often acting as aggressors rather than protectors.

Recognising this, the Court, in Supriyo, also directed the formation of a high-powered committee to examine issues related to the queer community—including protection from violence and discrimination. Yet, more than 10 months on since it was set up, the committee has done little beyond inviting public comments.

What we need is an actionable roadmap:

• Helplines: The government must establish 24/7 crisis helplines that are accessible to queer individuals facing violence. These helplines, staffed by trained professionals, must be widely publicised and integrated with immediate response protocols. They must be equipped to mobilise emergency services including medical aid or law enforcement, where necessary, for the support of victims of violence. Helpline operators must also be able to refer persons in danger to shelter homes or queer-affirmative safe spaces and provide other avenues for recourse against danger or violence.
• Shelter homes: Shelter homes for queer persons must be established in every district, ensuring that victims of violence have immediate access to shelter and support. Status quo is limited to Garima Grehs for transgender persons, of which there are currently only 12 in the country, and exclude cisgender queer persons. The shelter home framework must be significantly expanded to be available for all queer persons across the spectrum of LGBTQI+ identities, including options for individuals in queer relationships to live safely with their partner(s). Attacks against these shelter homes, such as the recent incidents at Mera Kunba, must be prevented or responded to swiftly and with sensitivity.
• Police accountability: Law enforcement typically fails LGBTQ+ individuals through inaction, bias, or outright mistreatment. Queer individuals hesitate to approach the police due to a legitimate fear of harassment, humiliation, and refusal to register complaints. The lack of trust in law enforcement is a fundamental failure of justice, which perpetuates cycles of violence and exclusion while leaving queer individuals unprotected and vulnerable.

To change this, the Police Act, 1861, and relevant state laws must be amended to explicitly prohibit police harassment of LGBTQ+ persons and those advocating for their rights. Violations of these provisions should carry real consequences for misconduct. Police service rules should classify the non-registration of complaints related to queer-targeted violence as deliberate negligence or misconduct, warranting strict disciplinary action.

• Sensitisation and training: Beyond legal reforms, systemic sensitisation is crucial. Regular LGBTQI+ rights training should be integrated into police curricula, ensuring that new recruits and existing officers are equipped to handle sensitive cases with dignity and respect. Civil society organisations working on LGBTQI+ issues should be involved in designing and conducting training sessions to ensure they reflect real-world experiences and challenges. A separate law enforcement unit, dedicated to addressing crimes against queer persons, should be set up to ensure specialised handling of such cases, fostering trust in the justice system. Specialised LGBTQI+ liaison officers should be appointed in every district, serving as a bridge between the community and law enforcement. These officers should be trained to handle cases with sensitivity, ensuring that survivors of violence do not face secondary victimisation at police stations.
• Recognising identity-based violence against queer persons: Identity-based violence isn’t just an attack on an individual—it’s an assault on an entire community’s right to exist without fear. Yet, India’s legal framework continues to overlook the specific vulnerabilities of LGBTQI+ individuals, failing to protect against targeted violence.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces an offence for murder committed by a group of five or more people on grounds of identity markers, including caste, language, and personal belief. While recognising identity-based violence, it fails to mention sexual orientation or gender identity. It prescribes a grave blanket punishment without recognising or addressing the nuances of identity-based violence against minorities.

Without clear legal recognition, anti-LGBTQI+ hate crimes are frequently dismissed as personal disputes or general offences, making them harder to prosecute, and prevent. Moreover, without explicit legal provisions, there is no systematic tracking of anti-LGBTQI+ violence, making policy action difficult.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the fundamental rights of queer individuals, but rights mean little without enforcement mechanisms. Other countries, including the United States, Canada, Britain, and South Africa, have enacted hate crime law, recognising that bias-driven violence requires stronger deterrence.

India must follow suit by:

● Revisiting The Hate Crimes and Hate Speech (Combat, Prevention and Punishment) Bill, 2022.

● Categorically criminalising and ensuring enhanced penalties for bias-motivated violence against gender and sexual minorities, similar to The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

● Mandating police training to recognise and specifically prosecute hate crimes, and to treat them with sensitivity.

● Enabling data-driven policy interventions by tracking hate crimes against queer persons.

The time for symbolic victories is over. The State bears a responsibility to enforce concrete legal reforms reflecting the urgency of the situation. If India is to claim its constitutional commitment to equality and dignity, it must protect its queer citizens with the full force of the law. Queer lives matter every day — not just during Pride Month or in court pronouncements. The change must come now.

This article is authored by Rakshita Goyal, senior resident fellow and Aashna Mansata, research fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi.