Vivek Agnihotri stated that same-sex marriage is not a ‘urban elitist’ concept. In response to a Supreme Court case, the director tweeted on Tuesday that those who query same-sex marriages have never visited India’s small towns and villages. Vivek added that in a “progressive, liberal, and inclusive” society such as India, same-sex marriage “should be the norm, not a crime.”

NO. Same sex marriage is not an ‘urban elitist’ concept. It’s a human need. Maybe some sarkari elites drafted it who have never travelled in small towns & villages. Or Mumbai locals.

First, same sex marriage is not a concept. It’s a need. It’s a right.
And in a progressive,… https://t.co/M4S3o5InXI

— Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri (@vivekagnihotri) April 18, 2023

He was responding to a tweet that stated, “Centre tells Supreme Court same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept that is far removed from the country’s social ethos.” Extending same-sex marriage beyond heterosexual unions will create a new institution, according to the Center for Equal Marriage. In response, Vivek tweeted, “NO. Same-sex marriage is not a ‘urban elitist’ concept. It is a basic human requirement. Perhaps it was written by sarkari (government) elites who have never visited small cities and villages. Or Mumbai residents. The concept of same-sex marriage does not exist. It’s necessary. This is a privilege. And in a civilisation as progressive, liberal, and inclusive as Bharat, same-sex marriage should be the norm, not a criminal.”

Hansal Mehta, a filmmaker, echoed these sentiments when he shared a still from Modern Love: Mumbai. He posted on Twitter, “Come on, Supreme Court! Create a course. Legalise same sex marriages.” Hansal had directed an episode of the 2022 anthology series that centered on a homosexual couple’s love story.

Last year, Hansal Mehta stated that he did not select a gay actor in his episode, which featured the couple Pratik Gandhi and Ranveer Brar. Hansal had stated in an interview with Mashable India, “I understand what they (the LGBTQ community) are saying, and I believe that representation should emanate from the stories. If someone is suitable for the cast, regardless of sexual orientation, they should be cast appropriately.”

Also read this:Baby on board! Ileana D’Cruz announced pregnancy

On Tuesday, a five-judge Supreme Court constitution bench – composed of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices SK Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha, and Hima Kohli – will hear a group of petitions seeking legal validation of same sex marriages in the country. However, the Center has opposed the proposal.

The post Vivek Agnihotri tweets same sex marriage is a need, it is a right: ‘Should be normal, not a crime’ appeared first on Republic Aeon.

The Supreme Court requested the Centre’s response to distinct petitions filed by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a directive to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act on November 25, 2013.

The notice was issued in response to petitions requesting that the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choosing be extended to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) individuals.One of the petitions sought a gender-neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 in which a person is not discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation.

On December 14, 2012, the Supreme Court requested the Centre’s response to two petitions requesting the transfer of pending same-sex marriage petitions from the Delhi High Court to itself.On January 6, the Supreme Court consolidated and transferred to itself all pending petitions of this nature pending before various high courts, including the Delhi High Court.

The Center filed its affidavit opposing same-sex marriage vehemently on Sunday. It informed the Supreme Court in the affidavit that the definition of an Indian family includes a biological man and woman and that it is not possible for the court to change the entire legislative policy of the country, which is profoundly rooted in religious and societal norms.

Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju defended the central government’s opposition to same-sex marriage by stating that it is a significant policy issue that requires discussion.

Also Read | Centre opposes same-sex marriage files affidavit in SC citing ‘Indian family concept’

“You must make it obvious that the government is not interfering with an individual’s personal life or activities. Citizens’ personal freedom and activities are never questioned, disturbed, or regulated by the government. However, when the issue involves the institution of marriage, it is a matter of policy that requires significant consideration “said Rijiju.

The post Same-sex marriage pleas to be heard by SC Consitution bench from March 18 appeared first on Republic Aeon.

The Center has filed its affidavit regarding petitions for same-sex marriage. On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a number of petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages.Living together as partners by same-sex individuals, which is now decriminalised, is not comparable to the Indian family unit concept of a spouse, a wife, and children, according to the Centre.

“It is argued that both codified and uncodified personal laws cover all branches of each religion. Depending on the applicable personal laws, the essence of marriage as an institution varies “Centre advised SC.”It is a sacrament, a sacred union for the performance of reciprocal duties between a man and a woman, in the Hindu religion. In Islam, marriage is a contract, but only between a biological male and a biological woman “it added.

Centre also emphasised that same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are plainly distinct categories that cannot be treated similarly.The petitions are scheduled to be heard by a bench consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, according to a cause list posted on the Supreme Court’s website on Monday (March 13).

On January 6, the Supreme Court consolidated and transferred to itself all such pending petitions before various high courts, including the Delhi High Court.

The centre and petitioners are required to compile submissions.

It had stated that the counsel for the Centre and advocate Arundhati Katju, representing the petitioners, shall jointly prepare a compendium of the written submissions, documents, and precedents that will be relied upon during the hearing.”The parties shall exchange electronic copies of the compilations and make them available to the court. List the petition along with related petitions and transferred cases for directions on March 13, 2023 “According to the court’s January 6 order,

The counsel for multiple petitioners told the bench that they want the apex court to transfer all cases to itself for a definitive ruling on the issue, and that the Centre can submit its response in the apex court.On January 3, the supreme court announced that it would hear petitions seeking the transfer of pending petitions for recognition of same-sex marriages from lower courts to the supreme court on January 6.

The apex court requested the Centre’s response to two petitions seeking a transfer of petitions pending in the Delhi High Court for directions to recognise same-sex marriages to itself on December 14, 2017.Prior to that, on November 25 of last year, the apex court had requested the Centre’s response to separate petitions filed by two homosexual couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a directive to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

A bench led by CJI Chandrachud, who was also a member of the Constitution bench that decriminalised consensual homosexual sex in 2018, issued a notice to the Centre in November of 2017 and requested the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in handling the petitions.

On September 6, 2018, the five-judge Constitution bench of the highest court ruled unanimously that consensual sex between adult homosexuals or heterosexuals in a private space is not a crime, striking down a portion of the British-era penal law that criminalised it on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.In November of last year, the Supreme Court issued a notice in response to petitions requesting that the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choosing be extended to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) individuals.

Also Read | On Monday Supreme Court Will Hear Petition On Same-Sex Marriages

One of the petitions requested a gender-neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 in which a person’s sexual orientation is not a basis for discrimination.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalised consensual homosexual sex, was deemed “irrational, indefensible, and manifestly arbitrary” by the supreme court in its 2018 ruling.

It had stated that the 158-year-old law had been transformed into a “odious instrument” to harass the LGBT community by subjecting its members to discrimination and unequal treatment.

The post Centre opposes same-sex marriage files affidavit in SC citing ‘Indian family concept’ appeared first on Republic Aeon.