Tag: Same-Sex Marriage

SC verdict on same-sex marriage: Ordinance fear haunts Queer activists

KOLKATA: While expecting a favourable verdict from the Supreme Court on the issue of same-sex marriage, a fear of an ordinance by the Centre to negate the apex court order seems to haunting the Queer rights activists to a great extent. The apprehension was expressed by the participants at an interactive panel discussion on ‘Marriage Equality: Legalising Same-sex Marriage’, organised by the West Bengal chapter of All India Professional’s Congress (AIPC) on Sunday.

According to them, the apprehension on this count arose after the recent ordinance by the Union government to negate the apex court’s order handing over the control of service of bureaucrats in the national capital to Delhi government.

In that eventuality, activists feel, another prolonged battle will start from them involving Queer-friendly political parties to achieve the final goal of getting the right to certificate for marriage for same-sex couples.

According to Kingshuk Banerjee, the state coordinator of the AIPC’s gender and diversity group in West Bengal, in the eventuality of on ordinance to negate a possible favourable verdict from the apex court, the fresh journey of struggle will be in developing a bigger movement, involving like-minded politicians, intellectuals, academicians, social rights groups and most importantly the common. “The people from the Queer community form a substantial chunk of voters in the country and we have to make the government realize that,” he said.

Same sex-couple, Suchandra Das and Shree Mukherjee, who participated in the panel discussion, said that during the course of hearing on the matter at the Supreme Court, while the Queer people received support from the bigger civil society an attempt to build up a counter-narrative has also started describing a the same-sex marriage as an “urban- elitist” affair.

“But the reality is while the urban-elitist same-sex couple can continue living together without the certificate of marriage by virtue of financial backup, the same is not possible for the urban poor. Without a proper marriage certificate, one cannot really make his or her partner nominees for provident fund, bank accounts, insurance schemes and even making a joint loan application,” said Mukherjee, a digital marketing professional.

Another panellist Pawan Dhal, a pioneer of the LGBTQ rights movement in the city and the founding trustee of Varta Trust, which runs a pan-India support service provider to the people from the Queer community, whether anyone will exercise the right to have the certificate of marriage or not should be left to that individual. “But the right to have that certificate should prevail always,” he said.

Panelist and counsel of the Calcutta High Court, Sreemoyee Mukherjee deliberated on the requirement of bringing about parallel amendments in certain other acts like adoption, custodian and succession.

-IANS

May 22, 2023
Public opinion important in debate on same-sex marriage: Mamata

Kolkata (IANS) | West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said on Wednesday that it is important to understand the pulse of the people (opinion) in the debate on same-sex marriage in the country, an important aspect and the deciding factor. In response to a media person’s question, she said- Generally, I love those people who love others. But since a case related to this issue is pending in the Supreme Court, it would not be right for me to comment on the issue at this point of time. The matter is sensitive. All I can say is that we have to understand the pulse of the people in this matter.

Banerjee also said that any detailed comment on the matter can be given only after the court’s order. His observation comes on the same day the apex court observed that there is no data to show same-sex marriage as an elitist concept highlighted by the central government. The top court asserted that the state cannot discriminate against an individual on the basis of a characteristic over which the individual has no control, and that something that is innate cannot have a class bias.

So far, all opposition parties, except the CPI-M, have maintained a cautious stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. Only senior CPI-M leader Brinda Karat has openly stated that her party supports the right of homosexuals to have their relationship status legally recognized.

Although not in so many words, the Chief Minister has made minor comments on this issue on Wednesday.

–IANS

April 19, 2023
Same-sex marriage: SC cites Navtej Johar case verdict

New Delhi (IANS) | The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that while the Navtej Johar judgment had decriminalized consensual same-sex sex, so far same-sex relationships have been accepted and are playing a conversational role. The role of Parliament is really relevant here. Chief Justice D.Y. A five-judge bench headed by Chandrachud clarified that it has been limited to the Special Marriage Act by giving it a gender-neutral interpretation and evolving a civil union concept.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha – Noted: Ever since the Navtej Johar judgment, same-sex relationships have been accepted in universities. It further said that in this emerging consensus the court is playing an interactive role and we are aware of our limitations.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing some of the petitioners, said that law cannot remain static and should change with time. Stating that if rights were to be equal, his clients should seek recognition of their union in the same way that two other heterosexuals did.

He said that since it is based on the implementation of my fundamental rights, I can come to the court and the court need not wait for the legislature. He emphasized that once the state respects it, the stigma will go away.

Rohatgi was assisted by Senior Advocate Saurabh Kripal, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju and a team of Advocates from Karanjawala & Co.

The apex court said that since laws are evolving, it has to exercise its interpretive power in an incremental manner and asked the counsel for the petitioners to confine themselves to the incremental scope and then allow Parliament to respond to social developments. Said.

“We cannot deny the fact that Parliament is indeed relevant here,” the bench said.

The counsel opposing same-sex petitions cited difficulties for the Hindu Marriage Act and personal laws of various religious groups if the top court were to recognize same-sex marriages as valid. The bench said it can keep personal law out of the equation and lawyers can address the court on the Special Marriage Act.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that the socio-legal status of marriage cannot be rendered through judicial decisions and also cannot be done by the legislature, while asserting that acceptance is within the society. have to come from

He said that Hindu and Muslim and other communities would be affected and urged the court to hear the state governments in the matter. To this the bench said, we are not going into personal law. How can you ask us to fix it? We cannot be forced to listen to everything.

Mehta replied that it would be a ‘short circuit’ and the Center was in no mood to listen to all this.

The bench said that it is adopting a middle path and we do not need to decide everything to decide something. It clarified that some of the petitioners wanted the matter to be dealt with on a broader aspect, but not going into individual laws etc.

Referring to the court’s decision not to go into personal law, Mehta said earlier judgments opened this window and it will open another window in future.

The apex court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.

–IANS

April 18, 2023
Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage: Arguments end for today, will continue tomorrow

Same-Sex Marriage in India, Supreme Court Hearing Live Updates: The Supreme Court today heard arguments on a batch of pleas seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the test of popular acceptance is not enough to deny one community’s fundamental rights. “What about the stigma going on? That can only be removed by a constitutional declaration.” He added, “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self worth of an individual.”

Earlier, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud stated that the mandatory 30-day notice of a couple’s intention to marry under the Special Marriage Act is “unconstitutional”. “Even in a heterosexual marriage, that you have to give notice and have people object to whether there should be a marriage or not is unconstitutional,” he said.

In separate remarks, the CJI also noted that the notion of a biological woman or man isn’t “absolute” and “it’s not just a question of what your genitals are.” He was responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Government, who stated, “Societal acceptance of any relationship is never dependent on either the legislation or judgement. The legislative intent of the legislature throughout has been a relationship between a biological man and a biological female.” Mehta has also argued whether the judiciary is the right forum to create new socio-legal rights through marriage.

April 18, 2023