Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday took exception to the affidavit filed by the Centre in response to an application seeking live streaming of the proceedings of the case seeking legalisation of same-sex marriages in India, after the petitioners submitted that the government had used “highly objectionable comments” in respect of their prayer. In the reply, the Centre had said that the plea is aimed at creating a dramatic impression of the proceedings and to win sympathy.
“Have you read the affidavit? We advise you not to have it on record and have a relook. This is not correct. As a counsel, it is your responsibility to read it and say that there is something objectionable. You are not obliged to follow it. You should be able to advise your client accordingly. Don’t do a mindless exercise on this,” the division bench of acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla told a counsel representing the Centre.
The reply was not on record before the court but has been served to the petitioners who are seeking live streaming of the proceedings. After the court took exception to the use of objectionable terms used in the reply, the counsel representing the Centre submitted that he will examine the response and file a better one.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the petitioners, earlier submitted that the statements made by the Centre demean the rights of same-sex couples and that there should be consequences for using such words.
“I am troubled that the government of India should use words like sympathy, hallucination, you are sensationalising. You may agree or disagree on live streaming but please don’t trivialise and demean the people who have struggled for years till the constitution bench of the apex court recognised their rights,” Kaul submitted.
The government in the affidavit said that neither the violation of any fundamental right is involved in the case nor is it a matter of national importance. Majority of the Indian population is “not very much affected” by the case, it has said.
“The sole intention of the applicant is to create hallucination of public interest and to make the matter sensational, which is only to be discouraged by the Hon’ble Court,” the Ministry of Law and Justice said in the reply, adding that the applicant is attempting to utilise the judicial forum “to generate public sympathy” and to “open vista” for “unwanted attention” to the issue.
Seeking dismissal of the petitions seeking legalisation of same-sex marriages, the Centre in February 2021 in a written reply before the court argued that a marriage in India necessarily depends upon “age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values” and that living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same-sex individuals is “not comparable” with the “Indian family unit concept” of a husband, wife and children.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
