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

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com