[Same Sex Marriage] Arguments May Involve "Sharp Ideological Schisms", Live Streaming Likely To Evoke Untoward Incidents: Centre To Delhi High Court
The Central government has once again opposed live streaming of proceedings in the case concerning recognition and registration of same-sex marriages in the country before Delhi High Court.The second affidavit is filed by the Ministry of Law and Justice after the High Court expressed displeasure at the "objectionable comments" made in its previous affidavit.The Ministry has argued that in...
The Central government has once again opposed live streaming of proceedings in the case concerning recognition and registration of same-sex marriages in the country before Delhi High Court.
The second affidavit is filed by the Ministry of Law and Justice after the High Court expressed displeasure at the "objectionable comments" made in its previous affidavit.
The Ministry has argued that in matters like the present one wherein "sharp ideological schisms may be present", live telecast of the proceedings may not be advisable.
"Proceedings like the present one are likely to be extremely charged and will involve passionate arguments from both sides. Certain arguments/ comments from either lawyers or from the Bench may likely evoke sharp and unwanted reactions. Such reactions may find vent either in social media or may even transgress from virtual media into the real lives of the people involved. It is also a possibility that such live streaming may be edited/ morphed and the entire sanctity of the same may be lost," the reply states.
Furthermore, stating that a robust system of media reportage is already in existence, the reply adds that the present matter is one which is "likely to generate considerable attention in newspapers and other media."
"In the recent past, there have been cases wherein even in matters which were not fully "live-streamed", there has been serious unrest caused and wild and unnecessary allegations have been levelled against sitting Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is well known that Judges cannot really defend themselves in public fora and their views/ opinions are expressed in the judicial pronouncements," the reply adds.
The Centre has further said that while every matter that comes before the Court is important, however, live streaming for every case may be neither feasible nor possible.
"The Petitioners herein are already being represented. Being interested parties, their interests are being safeguarded by their counsel and the said counsel/ lawyers are also likely to be transmitting the relevant updates/ information regarding the hearings that may be held," the reply adds.
The development came after the Court in May this year expressed strong displeasure at the "objectionable comments" made in the Central Government's previous affidavit opposing live streaming.
The Centre had claimed that the applicant is attempting to create "unnecessary hype" of the matter and its sole intention is to "create hallucination" of public interest and to make the matter "sensational".
The application for live streaming was filed by three professionals based out of Mumbai and Karnataka, in the petition filed by Abhijit Iyer Mitra seeking registration of marriages of LGBTQIA couples under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Notice in the application was issued in November 2021. It submitted that a substantial number of people (about 7-8% population of country) are interested in the proceedings and outcome of this matter. However, they are unable to witness the proceedings due to space constraint in Courtrooms and limitation of technical platforms like Cisco Webex, which is currently being used by the High Court for hybrid functioning.
The bunch of pleas are slated to be heard tomorrow.
About the pleas
The petition filed by Abhijit Iyer Mitra seeks registration of marriages of LGBTQIA couples under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is argued that the language used in the Hindu Marriage Act is gender-neutral, and it doesn't explicitly prohibit the marriages of same sex couples.
In another plea filed by Dr. Kavita Arora, a direction is sought to be issued to the Marriage Officer, South East Delhi, to solemnize her marriage with her partner under the Special Marriage Act. it is her case that the fundamental right to choose one's own partner for marriage under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to same-sex couples as well.
The plea moved by Joydeep Sengupta, an OCI card holder, and his partner Russell Blaine Stephens prays for a declaration from the Court that "a spouse of foreign origin of an Indian Citizen or OCI cardholder is entitled to apply for registration as an OCI under the Citizenship Act regardless of the gender, sex or sexual orientation of the applicant spouse."
The plea reasons that since S. 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, does not distinguish between heterosexual, same-sex or queer spouses, a person married to an Overseas Citizen of India, whose marriage is registered and subsisting for two years, should be declared eligible to apply as a spouse for an OCI card.
The High Court has also issued notices on two related petitions, one seeking recognition of the marriage of a Transgender person and another seeking recognition of marriage of a lesbian couple.
Case Title: ABHIJIT IYER MITRA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.