English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

5-judge Constitution Bench to decide fate of same-sex marriages from April 18, proceedings to be live-streamed: Supreme Court

A five-judge Constitution bench will decide upon legalizing same-sex marriages in India on April 18 and proceedings of the hearing will be streamed live as the issue of “seminal importance”, the Supreme Court said on Monday

Published

on

same-sex marriages

A five-judge Constitution bench will decide upon legalizing same-sex marriages in India on April 18 and proceedings of the hearing will be streamed live as the issue of “seminal importance”, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala, which today heard the combined pleas seeking the legalization of the gay marriages under the Special Marriage Act in the country said that a constitution bench of five judges would on April 18 further decide the fate of such matrimonies.

Noting that the issue was of “seminal importance” and any decision on the same would have a huge impact on the Indian society and will impact entire social fabric as a whole, the apex court noted Article 145(3) mandates that such a matter of law, which requires interpreting the constitution, must be decided by a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

The Centre has opposed the pleas arguing that gay marriages are incompatible with the “Indian family unit” consisting of a husband, a wife and their children which inevitably presupposes a biological man as a ‘husband’, a biological woman as a ‘wife’ and the children born out of the wedlock reared by the biological man as father and the biological woman as mother.

The BJP-led central government, in its affidavit filed before the top court, said that the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under Indian laws despite consensual gay being decriminalized in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 judgement.

The government further argued that legalizing gay marriages would wreck the delicate balance between personal laws and accepted societal values in the country. Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, Monday, noted that the institution of marriage is a matter of policy, even though doesn’t disturb personal freedom and activities of individuals.

Representing the Centre, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that giving legal status to gay marriages would trigger legal issues as marriage is a contract between a biological male and biological female in every major religion, not just among Hindus, but also in Islam.

The Centre’s council raised the legal status of adoption by a gay couple saying that the Parliament will have to examine will of the people and child’s and decide whether it can be raised in a such environment.

He said that the Parliament will have to factor in societal ethos while taking such a decision.

However, CJI Chandrachud retorted that the adopted child of a gay or lesbian couple does not have to be a gay or lesbian solicitor.

On January 6, the apex court had transferred and clubbed to itself, all such pleas pending in different high courts, including the Delhi High Court.

In its January 6 order, it had asked Advocate Arundhati Katju—representing the petitioners—and the Central government’s counsel, to prepare together a common compilation of the written submissions, documents and precedents on which reliance would be placed during the course of the hearing.

The petitioners’ counsel had requested the Supreme Court bench to transfer all such cases itself for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and that the Centre can file its response in the top court.

Earlier, on January 3, the Supreme Court had said it would hear on January 6 the pleas seeking a transfer of petitions for recognition of same-sex marriages pending before the high courts to the top court.

The Supreme Court had in December last year sought the Centre’s response to two pleas seeking a transfer of the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court for directions to recognize same-sex marriages to itself.

Earlier on November 25 last year, the top 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 decriminalised consensual gay sex in its 2018 landmark judgement, issued a notice to the Centre in November last year, besides seeking Attorney General R Venkataramani’s assistance in dealing with the pleas.

The petitions have sought a direction that the right to marry a person of one’s choice be extended to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) people as part of their fundamental right. One petition seeks a reinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in a gender-neutral manner where a person is not discriminated against due to his sexual orientation.

On September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, issued a landmark judgement wherein it decriminalized consensual gay sex among adults. It struck down a part of the British-era penal law under Article 377, on grounds that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.

In its pathbreaking judgement, the apex court ruled that section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalised consensual gay sex was “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”. The top court had said that the 158-year-old law had become an “odious weapon” to harass the LGBTQ community by subjecting its members to discrimination and unequal treatment.

India News

ED summons Pinarayi Vijayan in money laundering case

The Enforcement Directorate has summoned former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan for questioning in a money-laundering investigation linked to alleged payments by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd to his daughter’s company, Exalogic Solutions.

Published

on

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan for questioning in connection with a money-laundering investigation linked to Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL). Officials said he has been asked to appear before the agency at its Kochi office on October 23.

The summons has been issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The investigation concerns alleged payments by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct company associated with Vijayan’s daughter, Veena T.

The development comes after Kerala’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered cases against Vijayan and members of his family in connection with the alleged bribery case.

What is the CMRL-Exalogic case?

The case centres on alleged payments made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions under the guise of information technology consultancy services.

According to the ED, CMRL allegedly made fraudulent payments of Rs. 2.78 crore to the company. The agency is examining the financial transactions as part of its money-laundering investigation. These remain allegations and should not be treated as established criminal wrongdoing.

The matter came before the Kerala High Court, which on October 9 directed the VACB to register a case based on material submitted by the ED. The state agency subsequently registered cases involving Vijayan and his family members.

Pinarayi Vijayan challenges FIR order

Vijayan approached the Supreme Court on October 16, challenging the Kerala High Court order directing the registration of an FIR against him.

The legal challenge followed developments in the state courts concerning the alleged CMRL-Exalogic transactions. The ED’s summons is a separate step in its investigation under the anti-money-laundering law.

The case involves allegations of financial irregularities linked to payments to Exalogic Solutions. The investigation and legal proceedings are ongoing; the summons itself does not establish guilt.

Continue Reading

India News

LK Advani, 98, hospitalised in Delhi with chest infection

Veteran BJP leader LK Advani, 98, has been admitted to Delhi’s Indraprastha Apollo Hospital with a chest infection. Hospital officials said his condition was stable.

Published

on

Veteran Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani has been admitted to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in Delhi with a chest infection. Hospital officials have said that his condition is stable.

The 98-year-old leader was brought to the hospital at around 7.30 pm on Friday, October 16, and admitted to its pulmonary department. He is receiving treatment and remains under observation by a team of doctors, with medical tests underway.

LK Advani’s recent hospitalisation

Advani was previously admitted to Apollo Hospital in May 2026 because of age-related health complications. He remained under medical care for a few days before being discharged, according to the report.

In December 2024, the veteran BJP leader was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital for medical management and investigations. He received treatment under the supervision of a neurologist, and the hospital had described his condition as stable at the time.

On December 17, 2024, the hospital reported gradual improvement and indicated that he was likely to be moved out of the ICU within the next one to two days.

Advani’s political career

Advani has been a prominent figure in the BJP’s rise in Indian politics. He served as the party’s president on multiple occasions and played a significant role in expanding its organisational presence.

His 1990 Ram Rath Yatra became a major event in the country’s political history. He later served as Union Home Minister and was India’s Deputy Prime Minister from 2002 to 2004 in the government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

In recognition of his contribution to public life, Advani was awarded the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian honour, in 2024. He had previously received the Padma Vibhushan in 2015.

Continue Reading

India News

Centre sends 3 letters to Punjab government after anti-drug activist’s killing

The Centre has sought reports from the Punjab government on three incidents linked to allegations surrounding drug-related activities, including the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota.

Published

on

Amit Shah

The Union government has sought detailed explanations from the Punjab government regarding three incidents linked to concerns over drug-related activities in the state. The move follows the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota in Mansa and comes amid renewed scrutiny of the state’s drug problem and law-and-order situation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sent three letters to the Punjab chief secretary on October 16, with copies to the state’s director general of police. The communications sought information about Jhota’s killing, the fatal attack on Bikramjit Singh in Gurdaspur district, and the reported suicide of Gulzar Singh in September.

What the Centre’s three letters cover

The first letter concerned the October 13 killing of Parvinder Singh, popularly known as Jhota, who was known for raising concerns about drug abuse and alleged illegal sales of intoxicating substances in Punjab.

The ministry sought a comprehensive factual report on the incident and details of the steps taken by the state government following his death. It also asked about action taken on the Union government’s Vision Document on Narcotics Control for 2026–2029.

The document outlines measures to strengthen anti-narcotics enforcement, including dedicated anti-narcotics task forces, financial investigations, prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and action against transnational drug networks.

The second letter concerned the attack in Mari Panwan village in Gurdaspur district, in which Bikramjit Singh died and Nishan Singh and Gurmukh Singh were critically injured.

According to accounts cited in the report, the three men had objected to alleged drug peddling in their village before being attacked with sharp-edged weapons. However, police have denied that the incident was motivated by drug-related disputes and said an investigation was underway. Bikramjit’s relatives have also disputed the police account that the murder followed a dispute over a mobile phone.

The third letter sought details about Gulzar Singh’s death on September 8. The ministry referred to reports that he had raised concerns about the availability of synthetic drugs and had faced pressure and harassment from the local village panchayat. These allegations form part of the circumstances the Centre has asked the state government to examine and report on.

Amit Shah raises questions over Punjab’s law and order

Union Home Minister Amit Shah also raised concerns about the situation in Punjab, referring to the challenges posed by drugs, gangsterism and organised crime.

Questioning the Bhagwant Mann-led government over public safety, Shah called for action against the drug trade, protection for young people and strict measures against criminals.

The Centre’s requests place the three incidents under scrutiny, although the alleged links between the attacks or deaths and opposition to drug-related activities remain subject to the specific circumstances and investigations in each case.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com