‘Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC
Menu
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
Law
'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC
The Wire Staff
8 minutes ago
The bench also slammed the police for failing to respond to the urgent messages sent by the petitioner and forcing the woman to go with her parents.
Photo: Yoga Balaji/Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 3.0.
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute now
New Delhi: While granting relief to a woman who wanted to go with her female partner, the Madras high court has ruled that the fact that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family' is well-settled in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.
The division bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan were hearing the habeas corpus petition of the woman partner of the 25-year-old woman who was detained by her family against her will.
'We have come to the conclusion that the detenue is entitled to go with the petitioner (female partner) and that she cannot be detained against her will by her family members,' said the bench, reported New Indian Express.
The court also restrained the family members of the woman from 'interfering with her personal liberty'. The court also also issued a 'writ of continuing mandamus' to the jurisdictional police for providing sufficient protection to the woman and her partner as and when required.
'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of a 'chosen family' is now well-settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence,' said the court.
The court said the Supreme Court's order in the Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India case may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples but they can very well form a family.
Court slams police for forcing the woman to go with her parents
The bench noted that the petitioner has not mentioned anywhere about the true nature of their relationship but called herself a close friend. The court said that it understood the hesitation on her part since the society is still conservative.
The bench also slammed the police in Gudiyatham in Vellore district, Reddiyarpalayam in Puducherry and Jeevan Beema Nagar in Karnataka for failing to respond to the urgent messages sent by the petitioner and forcing the woman to go with her parents.
The bench also rejected the statement made by the woman's mother that the petitioner had led her daughter 'astray' and turned her into a 'drug addict.'
The court said that it had endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter is entitled to choose a life of her own since she is an adult as the law is clear and the precedents are clearer on the issue.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
'Not the Statements to be Made': Karnataka HC Tells BJP MLC to Apologise to DC Over Pakistan Remarks
Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us
The Gujarat Evictions and the Weaponisation of National Security
The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M
When the Supreme Court Echoes Populist Sentiments, It Risks Undermining the Constitution's Voice
For Mahmudabad's Bail Observations, We Cannot Blame Just the Supreme Court
Bombay HC Slams State, College For Rustication, Arrest of Student Over Post on Operation Sindoor
SC Extends Stay on BJP Minister Vijay Shah's Arrest; Closes Madhya Pradesh HC Proceedings
'In Public Interest': MMRDA Tells SC as it Scraps Tender for Mumbai Elevated Road, Tunnel Projects
View in Desktop Mode
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
14 hours ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Wire
16 hours ago
- The Wire
Nikhil Gupta Sought Dismissal of Charges, Lawyers Say Filing Was ‘Inadvertent'
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now World Nikhil Gupta Sought Dismissal of Charges, Lawyers Say Filing Was 'Inadvertent' Devirupa Mitra 39 minutes ago Pre-trial proceedings for Gupta, who is accused of plotting to hire a hitman on behalf of a former Indian intelligence officer to assassinate US citizen and Khalistani separatist lawyer Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, are scheduled to begin this month. File image. A screengrab from a video released on June 18, 2024 by Czech police, of the extradition of Nikhil Gupta to the US. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now New Delhi: In an unexpected twist ahead of his trial later this year, jailed Indian businessman Nikhil Gupta submitted a signed letter to a federal New York judge seeking dismissal of his indictment, only for his lawyer to inform the court that the filing had been made 'inadvertently.' Gupta, who is accused of plotting to hire a hitman on behalf of a former Indian intelligence officer to assassinate US citizen and Khalistani separatist lawyer Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, is scheduled to go on trial in November, with pre-trial proceedings set to begin later this month. He has been in US federal custody since June 2024, following his arrest at Prague airport and subsequent extradition from the Czech Republic. The former Research and Analysis Wing officer Vikas Yadav is also charged in the indictment, but his whereabouts in India are still unknown. On May 29, the court formally received Gupta's seven-page letter, in which he asked the judge to throw out the charges against him and release him immediately on bail. The move raised eyebrows, as Gupta submitted the motion himself despite being represented by court-appointed attorneys. In his letter, emailed to the court, Gupta argued that the indictment was legally flawed because it did not cite a specific state or federal law that would have been broken had the alleged murder-for-hire plot been carried out. He also contended that his extradition from the Czech Republic was invalid because it was based on what he called a 'defective' indictment. The next day, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York asked defence counsel whether they were aware of the pro se motion and whether Gupta truly intended to proceed with it. The judge noted that not only was Gupta already represented by two lawyers, who were appointed by the court, but that they had already decided on a pre-trial motion schedule. 'Defense Counsel is directed to confirm whether they are aware of Defendant's filing and whether it is Defendant's wish to proceed with the Pro Se Motion,' said Judge Marreo in his order dated May 30. Incidentally, Gupta is now on his third set of defence lawyers since arriving in the United States. His first lawyer withdrew in October last year, citing non-payment and 'irreconcilable differences' with client. The next set, appointed by the court at Gupta's request, remained on the case for about five months. His current lawyers, also court-appointed, have been representing him since April. In response to the judge's order, Matthew LaRoche and Nola B. Heller submitted a letter on May 30 itself, stating they had spoken with Gupta and that he had confirmed he was 'very satisfied with our representation' and did not wish to move forward with the self-filed motion. As for the filing, the lawyers said Gupta had 'inadvertently filed it.' However, the prosecution recommended, as per the letter, that the judge confirm Gupta's position in open court at the next pretrial conference. They said the judge should ask Gupta directly if he was satisfied with his lawyers and whether he still wished to withdraw the motion. The defence disagreed, saying Gupta's position had already been clearly conveyed. When contacted by The Wire, Matthew LaRoche declined to comment. Speaking to The Wire, former assistant US attorney and a partner at New York law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman, Jacques Semmelman, said that that the argument 'in Mr Gupta's letter to the court, that a defective indictment makes the extradition invalid and requires his release, is entirely incorrect' 'There is no remedy in the US legal system that provides what he's asking for. I am not agreeing that his indictment is defective as he claims, but even if it were defective, that would not invalidate the extradition. Once he is here, the US court does not inquire how he arrived,' he said. Semmelmans also noted that Nikhil Gupta has an 'extremely well-regarded defense attorney, Mr. LaRoche'. 'He's a top criminal defense attorney at a very prominent law firm, Milbank. Mr Gupta has top-notch representation,' he added. A week after the court acknowledged the letter, the federal judge on June 6 accepted the defence's request to withdraw Gupta's motion to dismiss all charges. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News As India and Canada's Foreign Ministers Speak Over Phone, Signs of a Further Thaw in Ties Lalu's Son Tej Pratap Is Expelled from RJD For the Second Time in Five Years Following Backlash, Delhi PWD Removes Photos of People Cleaning Drains Without Safety Gear Five Stark Instances Counter Environment Minister's 'Democracy Walking Alongside Development' Remark 'Numbers Matter, Else CDS Would Have Made Them Public': Sushant Singh Interview | What to Do When Your Mother-Tongue Fades Away Watch | 'Numbers Matter, Else CDS Would Have Made it Public': Sushant Singh Six Times Misogyny Overshadowed BJP's Symbolism Post-Operation Sindoor India's Inability to Produce Engines Makes Its Forces Vulnerable to Geopolitics and More View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Wire
a day ago
- The Wire
‘Stolen' Embraces Contemporary India With All its Faults and Messiness
A still from 'Stolen'. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now Karan Tejpal's Stolen might look like a thriller on the surface. But if one pays attention, it reveals itself as a survival film. For the uninitiated, a survival film is a subgenre of films telling tales of a character surviving an adventure gone awry. In Stolen, the misadventure entails residing in India in the 2020s. A nation with obscene inequalities, a broken law-and-order system that couldn't be less bothered about the people who need it the most, and a culture that is a sinister concoction of ancient traditionalism and new-age apathy – India in the 2020s is a whole new beast. It's a place that has picked up the vocabulary of empathy, privilege and virtue-signalling from the West, but one where fans of a cricket team throng a stadium and remorselessly stomp over dozens of people – as a part of their 'celebration'. It's where parts of a country insist on organic vegetables and alkaline water, while in another, farmers kill themselves after being unable to procure water, or a fair price for their produce. It's a country where a routine police complaint or a witness statement can become a life-long trauma in a close-up, and seems like a dark comedy in a long shot. In this country, anyone who thinks they can imbibe a few bookish ideals and implement them in an ordinary day of small-town India, is being too naive. The closer one gets, the more India can seem like a labyrinth – with each corner springing a surprise. It's something Tejpal's film knows all too well. Hence, it doesn't claim to know how to 'solve' it – instead stressing on what one can do with their limited intent. Jhumpa (Mia Maelzer) is one of the countless people asleep on a bench of a platform in a nondescript railway station in Northern India (the dialect suggests Haryana). Next to her is her five-month old infant, Champa. In the film's first scene, a veiled woman – the only one awake on the platform — steals the infant and flees. While running, she bumps into a train passenger, Raman Bansal (Shubham Vardhan), who has gotten off a train to attend his mother's wedding. Raman's brother Gautam (Abhishek Banerjee) is asleep in the parking lot of the station, having driven there in the dead of the night to pick him up. When Jhumpa wakes up a few minutes later, and can't seem to find her infant daughter – all hell understandably breaks loose. She alleges Raman stole her child, who is holding a pink beanie, which fell from the baby when the thief bumped into him. A mob gathers around them, and like it happens in India's smartphone revolution, people start recording the confrontation. It takes Gautam to diffuse the rising tensions, when he asks a simple question to Jhumpa and the police constable nearby – 'Would a thief stick around at the crime scene, holding on to evidence that will implicate him?' Something Tejpal's film does exceedingly well is layer the exposition into throwaway lines of dialogue without drawing attention to themselves. In the first five minutes, it's established that Gautam and Raman have a Shashi Kapoor-Amitabh Bachchan dynamic from Deewar (1975). Gautam is the pragmatic business-owner, while Raman is the idealistic photographer. Raman is painted by Gautam as someone who indulges his bad mental health ('I don't understand this celebration of depression', he says), and feels things a little too strongly. On the other hand, Raman can't understand Gautam throwing money at all the problems he encounters, and someone so consumed with his sheltered life and his efforts to preserve it – that he couldn't be bothered about even the most mundane acts of kindness and consideration. A still from 'Stolen'. It's because of Raman that the two brothers get embroiled in the search for Jhumpa's infant. He knows what Jhumpa has already made her peace with – the cops will probably do something to save face, but it will be too late to find her daughter. Gautam can smell the stink of the situation from far away, because he's dealt with the twisted Indian law enforcement system more than Raman would know. He repeatedly tells him that this is a trap and they should walk away. Both Banerjee and Vardhan have appeared in minor roles before and are painfully on-point as the two brothers, with entirely different skill-sets. While Raman is the empathetic social media warrior, out of his depth while trying to do the right thing, Gautam knows how quickly idealism can curdle into a witch-hunt in the hands of less-than-competent investigators, working out of their many ideological, social biases. Also, Jhumpa is a tribal, making the cops that much more suspicious of anything she says. Not only is she poor, but she's also a woman. The slightest outburst as a result of her desperation and helplessness, means she gets labelled 'hysterical'. Maelzer plays Jhumpa like an open wound of a character, impossible to look away from. Tejpal's film embraces India with all its faults and messiness, realising the many conflicts between the different social orders, schizophrenic ideologies, and a society where truth takes many forms. It's an era where a growing number of people hold smartphones, without a hint of the wisdom to not get carried away by a WhatsApp forward and lynch people in broad daylight. The film delivers biting commentary on how these parts of India are 'consumed' from behind the safety of a screen. One of the film's most tense sequences is viewed from inside the car, almost making us voyeurs to a crime. How does one react — put away the phone and pretend like nothing happened, or introspect about what they just saw? A still from 'Stolen'. As Stolen teases us with the bleakest of ends, some things are contrived in the last 20 minutes to make the climax hopeful. Slightly put off by the contrivances at first, I think I understood the reason behind them much later. Even in the starkest tales, maybe it's the makers' responsibility to leave people with a 'moral' that emphasises on doing the right thing, with the knowledge that it's hard to do over a prolonged period. In India, if you aren't at the receiving end of the system, it's probably because of blind luck or privilege, or both. Tejpal's film wants to tell you that even if you can't go around rectifying an impoverished country battling an identity crisis, when injustice stares you in the face, don't look away. Despite what disenchanted voices will say, Karan Tejpal's film is a reminder that despite all the bad faith around us, it can't be an excuse to do nothing. *Stolen is streaming on Amazon Prime Video The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
