Ok so the hearing is today, I'm guessing it will be while before the verdict.Originally posted by: DelusionsOfNeha
the hearing? Yes. After years of Tarikh pe Tarikh, today is the D-Day. I am seriously hoping for something positive. Please don't disappoint me Apex court. ❤️
The government has already failed us 😡
Why is the government opposed? Or shouldn't I ask? 🤔
it is against the "Hindu" code of conduct and against the "traditional" family structure apparently.Originally posted by: LizzieBennet
Ok so the hearing is today, I'm guessing it will be while before the verdict.
Why is the government opposed? Or shouldn't I ask? 🤔
Yup, 6+ years (if I'm not wrong) we've been waiting for the "hearing" cuz it isn't an urgent and important issue 🤡
The Centre on Monday said the petitions seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage reflects an ”urban elitist” view for the purpose of social acceptance. The government told the top court that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function which the courts should refrain from deciding.
It also asserted that legal validation for same-sex marriages will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.
The Centre on Monday said the petitions seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage reflects an ”urban elitist” view for the purpose of social acceptance. The government told the top court that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function which the courts should refrain from deciding.
It also asserted that legal validation for same-sex marriages will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.
While referring the pleas to the constitution bench, the court had said the submissions on the issue involve an interplay between constitutional rights on the one hand and special legislative enactments, including the Special Marriage Act, on the other.
“Having due regard to the broader context of the petitions before this court, the inter-relationship between the statutory regime and constitutional rights, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the issues raised are resolved by a constitution bench of five judges of this court…,” the bench had said while referring to Article 145 (3) of the Constitution and calling it a “very seminal issue”.
“We accordingly direct that the hearing of these petitions be placed before a constitution bench,” the apex court said while posting the pleas for hearing on April 18.
Article 145(3) of the Constitution says there should be at least five judges to hear cases that involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or any reference under Article 143, which deals with the power of the President of India to consult the Supreme Court.
The court said in the batch of pleas, the petitioners have sought recognition of the rights of couples of the same gender to marry, and while relying upon the apex court verdicts on right to privacy and decriminalising section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, they have asserted broader constitutional entitlements arising out of the right to life and personal liberty, right to dignity and others.
The bench had said one of the issues raised before it also relates to the rights of transgender couples to marry.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the bench that marriage is not just a contract in the case of Hindu law which it is in Mohammedan law.
“When the question of granting recognition, legal sanction to a relationship is concerned, that is essentially a function of the legislature and for more than one reason,” he said.
The apex court had, on January 6, clubbed and transferred to itself all such petitions pending before different high courts, including the Delhi High Court.
On December 14 last year, the top court had sought the Centre’s response to two pleas seeking a transfer of the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court for directions to recognise same-sex marriages to itself.
Prior to that, on November 25 last year, the apex court had sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.
A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, who was also part of the Constitution bench that in 2018 decriminalised consensual gay sex, issued a notice to the Centre in November last year, besides seeking Attorney General R Venkataramani’s assistance in dealing with the pleas.
The top court’s five-judge Constitution bench, in a path-breaking unanimous verdict delivered on September 6, 2018, held that consensual sex among adult homosexuals or heterosexuals in private space is not a crime while striking down a part of the British-era penal law that criminalised it on the ground that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.
"while striking down a part of the British-era penal law that criminalised it on the ground that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity."
We are still following the British-era laws 🤪
The British have left India, changed their own laws on same-sex marriage.
What will happen to our country when laws can't even evolve with time? (Well, some laws did evolve, but is that enough? It's changing slower than snail's pace.)
And which data shows that validation of same-sex marriage reflects an ”urban elitist” view? I only see (with news as the relevant data) the LGBTQ+ sections of society suffering in discrimination and unemployment. Does that look like "urban elite"?
British era law was Sectio 377.Originally posted by: DreamOfEndless
"while striking down a part of the British-era penal law that criminalised it on the ground that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity."
We are still following the British-era laws 🤪
The British have left India, changed their own laws on same-sex marriage.
What will happen to our country when laws can't even evolve with time? (Well, some laws did evolve, but is that enough? It's changing slower than snail's pace.)
And which data shows that validation of same-sex marriage reflects an ”urban elitist” view? I only see (with news as the relevant data) the LGBTQ+ sections of society suffering in discrimination and unemployment. Does that look like "urban elite"?
Unfortunately, IPC, both civil and criminal, still follows British Era created laws with necessary modifications.
gay marriage is elite concept apparently, cuz other sections of LGBTQ+ people are too busy in survival mode, wahan se bahar aayenge tab to shadi hogi na.. oh wait.. for that they need to be secure, have social acceptance, stay away from being hated and beaten up just for existing... haan aur bhi bahut kuch... and none of these things can be ensured currently, since its a "private" matter. sab kuch toh bedroom mein hi hota hai na. (/sarcasm)
Urban Elitist view - “Marriage, as an institution in law, has many statutory and other consequences under various legislative enactments. Therefore, any formal recognition of such a human relationship cannot be regarded as just a privacy issue between two adults," it said.
“The competent legislature will have to take into account broader views and voice of all rural, semi-rural and urban population, views of religious denominations keeping in mind personal laws as well as and customs governing the field of marriage together with its inevitable cascading effects on several other statutes," the Centre said.
...conventional and universally accepted socio-legal relationships across all religions, are “deeply rooted in the Indian social context and indeed is considered a sacrament in all branches of Hindu law. Even in Islam, though it is a contract, it is a sacred contract and a valid marriage is only between a biological male and a biological woman".
It further added that such petitions “merely reflect urban elitist views and cannot be compared with the appropriate legislature which reflects the views and voices of a far wider spectrum and expands across the country."
The affidavit stated that marriage is a socio-legal institution which can be created, recognised, conferred with legal sanctity and regulated only by the competent legislature by way of an Act under Article 246 of the Constitution of India.
“It is submitted that therefore, it is the humble request of the applicant the issues raised in the present petition be left to the wisdom of the elected representatives of the people who alone shall be the democratically viable and legitimate source through which any change in the understanding and/or the creation/recognition of the any new social institution can take place," the Centre said.
It is the responsibility of courts to correct injustices against disadvantaged minorities by ordering the legislature to bring laws into compliance with constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.
Let's first see if the courts have the wisdom to recognize the injustice that needs redress, and then the legislature can demonstrate its wisdom by following orders to craft equitable laws for a modern secular society.
@bold : that happened, but the centre refuses to make laws and even discarded the Private Members Bill by Shashi Tharoor on Marriage Equality last year or so.Originally posted by: BrhannadaArmour
It is the responsibility of courts to correct injustices against disadvantaged minorities by ordering the legislature to bring laws into compliance with constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.
Let's first see if the courts have the wisdom to recognize the injustice that needs redress, and then the legislature can demonstrate its wisdom by following orders to craft equitable laws for a modern secular society.
Hoping for a positive outcome.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CrLMp4xuhR4/?igshid=ODM2MWFjZDg=
In today's hearing some really good points were put in defense while dismantling the regressive notions of the Centre. The hearing shall continue tomorrow.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CrLMgduPQ61/?igshid=ODM2MWFjZDg=
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cqx7uu_LxEm/?igshid=ODM2MWFjZDg=
| topics | author | replies | views | reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LizzieBennet | 13 | 705 |
comment:
p_commentcount