Whether it is abortion, surrogacy, same-sex relations, sex work, marital rape, or beauty pageants, all of them have two things in common: they concern gender and sexuality, and they arouse potent religious and cultural feeling. As feminists, we are familiar with the utterly important work our foremothers have done to deconstruct judicial rulings on these matters. And as public lawyers, we are also aware of critiques from liberalism and secularism that these judgments draw. And while all these critiques are valid, they rely on the 'whack-a-mole' approach of identifying cases we study, and are based on a few 'landmark' decisions-- a manifestation of our methodologically cheeky approach as legal scholars.
But what if we tried to design research in a more systematic way to catch all the cases on our research question (a task made undoubtedly difficult by the astounding number of judgments in the Indian court system)? Could this endeavour reveal more insights to what is happening in gender and sexuality cases? Yes, it could. Could it make us aware of more legal tools we already have at our disposal to push back? Yes, it could. Could it show us the multifaceted role that religion and culture play, in not just contracting, but also expanding human rights? Also yes.
In this talk, I discuss my research design (for my upcoming monograph) on assembling cases that rouse religious and cultural contestations and for studying them systematically to reveal legal phenomena that have been missed. Powered by insights from cultural psychoanalysis, feminist legal theory, systematic content analysis, and plain old constitutional and political theory, the idea is to innovate a framework for judges and scholars to work out what to 'do' with religious and cultural claims when they arise (disproportionately, though not exclusively) in gender and sexuality cases.