No legal recognition for same-sex marriages, rules SC, leaves it to Parliament

News Network
October 17, 2023

bench.jpg

New Delhi, Oct 17: The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed judgement that it could not legally recognise same-sex marriages, after hearing a batch of pleas seeking legal sanction for the same. The apex court put the onus on the Parliament to frame the necessary laws.

The court ruled that the right to enter union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation.

"The Union Govt, State Govts and UTs shall not discriminate against the right of the queer community to enter into union", CJI D Y Chandrachud said.

"Failure of State to recognise the bouquet of rights flowing from a queer relationship amounts to discrimination", the court observed.

While adding "Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing laws including personal laws", the court continued that unmarried couples, including queer ones, can jointly adopt a child.

"This court cannot make law, it can only interpret it and give effect to it," the CJI said, while passing judgement. He had started by saying there were four judgements in the case, one from him, and the others from the Supreme Court bench hearing the matter.

"There is a degree of agreement and a degree of disagreement on how far we have to go", the CJI said.

He added, "Queerness can be regardless of one's caste or class or socio-economic status", leading up to the judgement.

The CJI continued that marriage as an institution has metamorphosed over time.

Chandrachud further said that if the apex court held "Section 4 of Special Marriage Act is unconstitutional because of being under-inclusive" it has to either strike it down or read it down.

The CJI noted "The right to enter into Union includes the right to choose one's partner and the right to recognition of that union", adding that "failure to recognize such associations will result in discrimination against queer couples."

The Solicitor General has already said that the Union would set out a committee to examine rights which can be conferred to such a couple.

The right to choose a partner goes to the very root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21, the CJI observed.

Stating that the gender of a person is the not the same as their sexuality, the CJI said "A transgender person is in a heterosexual relationship, such a marriage is recognised by the law. Since a transgender person can be in a heterosexual relationship, a union between a transman and a transwoman or vice versa can be registered under Special Marriage Act (SMA)."

The court also recognised that queer people cannot be discriminated against. The CJI said that material benefits and services that heterosexual couples get cannot be denied to queer couples, since that would be a violation of their fundamental rights.

Speaking on adoption rights, the CJI noted that neither can one assume unmarried couples are not serious about their relationship. He added, "There is no material on record to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child."

Chandrachud also declared that stating only heterosexual couples can be good parents, is a violation of Article 15, since it is discriminatory.

"The CARA circular (which excludes queer couples from adoption) is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution", he said.

"CARA Regulation 5(3) indirectly discriminates against atypical unions. A queer person can adopt only in an individual capacity. This has the effect of reinforcing the discrimination against queer community", he added.

The CJI then directed the Union governments, state governments, and UTs to not discriminate against the queer community.

He also directed them to ensure no discrimination exists in access to goods and services.

Chandrachud added a few more directives including - sensitising public about queer rights, creating hotline for queer community, creating safe house for queer couples, ensuring inter-sex children are not forced to undergo operations, no person shall be forced to undergo hormonal therapy.

He also said queer community should not be harassed by being called to the police station to be asked about their sexual identity. The police cannot force queer couples to return to their natal families either, the CJI directed.

"Police should conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR against a queer couple over their relationship", he further said.

A five-judge bench including Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, and led by CJI D Y Chandrachud had begun hearing the matter from April 18.

The bench, after rigorous deliberation, reserved its judgement on May 11, 2023, setting the stage for a verdict that will greatly impact the LGBTQIA+ community in the world's largest democracy.

The apex court confined the case to the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and issued a clarification that it would not be dealing with personal laws or the Hindu Marriage Act. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 15,2024

amitshah.jpg

Union minister Amit Shah on Friday, November 15, said PM Narendra Modi will amend the Waqf Act despite opposition from leaders like Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar.

"Modi ji wants to change the Waqf Board law, but Uddhav ji, Sharad Pawar and Supriya Sule are opposing it," Shah said, addressing a rally at Umarkhed in Maharashtra's Yavatmal district.

"Uddhav ji, listen carefully, you all can protest as much as you want, but Modi ji will amend the Waqf Act," he said. Shah said there are two camps in the November 20 Maharashtra assembly polls, one of 'Pandavas' represented by the BJP-led Mahayuti and the other of 'Kauravas' represented by Maha Vikas Aghadi.

"Uddhav Thackeray claims that his Shiv Sena is the real one. Can the real Shiv Sena go against renaming Aurangabad to Sambhajinagar? Can the real Shiv Sena go against renaming Ahmednagar to Ahilyanagar? The real Shiv Sena stands with the BJP," Shah said.

"Rahul Baba used to say that his government would credit money in the accounts of the people instantly. You were unable to fulfil your promises in Himachal, Karnataka, and Telangana," he said.

Shah said the Mahayuti alliance has promised that women will get Rs 2,100 per month under the Ladki Bahin Yojana. "Kashmir is an integral part of India and no power in the world can snatch it away from us," Shah said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 16,2024

Mangaluru: The Kavoor police in Mangaluru, Karnataka, have arrested three individuals from Kerala in connection with two separate cybercrime cases, including one involving extortion under the guise of a "digital arrest."

City Commissioner of Police Anupam Agrawal reported that one of the arrested individuals, Nisar, a resident of Ernakulam district, posed as a CBI officer. He allegedly threatened the complainant with arrest and extorted Rs 68 lakh. A case has been filed under sections 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the IT Act, and sections 308 (2) and 381 (4) of BNS.

In another case, the Kavoor police arrested two men, Sahil K P of Thiruvannur, Kozhikode, and Muhammad Nashath of Mappila Koyilandy, Kerala, in connection with a share trade fraud. The accused are alleged to have deceived the complainant by promising substantial profits from an investment in the stock market. Trusting the fraudsters, the complainant invested Rs 90 lakh, which was subsequently lost. A case has been registered under sections 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the IT Act, and sections 318 (4) and 3 (5) of BNS.

The accused were arrested in Koyilandi and presented before the court. The operation was carried out under the guidance of City Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal, led by Mangaluru North Sub-Division ACP Srikanth K, Kavoor Inspector Raghavendra Byndoor, Kavoor PSI Mallikarjuna Biradara, and staff members Ramanna Shetty, Bhuvaneshwari, Rajappa Kashibai, Praveen N, and Malatesh. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.