#Guruswamy

[fuck-i-like-too-much-stuff]

Why did i just see Menaka Guruswamy AGREEING WITH Kapil Sibbal in today's hearing??? What??

[hyperdemona]

Fuck me guys, I got high and showed Amma this video and she was against it and suspicious of me lol😭😭

Anyway, here's lesbian and Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy arguing for legalising same sex marriage in India 🇮🇳🌈 in the SC. She and her long-term gf Arundhati Katju were also instrumental in striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalised homosexual sex.

[friendswithclay]

From: “countries of the world: Sri Lanka” by Guruswamy, Krishman; 2002.

[hissterical-nyaan]

Statute kya hota hai? Also if not marriage, kya Civil Partnership ka koi scope hai? 🍋

Statute is essentially a law passed by the parliament like Special Marriage 'Act'

See the problem with judiciary deciding our rights is they can't create laws. What they are trying to do is interpret the SMA to include Same-Sex marriage. There are many ways to interpret a statute, the government will interpret it literally i.e., what is written - man and woman, husband and wife. What we want is an interpretation that can include two consenting adults and spouses. We can interpret it through constitution - we have right to equality and dignity.

As far as I know India does not recognise a civil partnership like this. Ours is a marriage country as said by Guruswamy

Parliament will have to take that action

[zalrb]

Wait wait wait. Cassandra Clare is a plagiarist? Are you talking about the whole harry potter fanfic thing because I feel that's more inspiration then plagiarism. Jkr isn't the only one who's written a story about a character who thinks their human but isn't and gets introduced into a magical world and I think Clare's story has so many differences to stand alone as original.

I mean, I don't read her books and I wasn't a part of the fandom but me and initium went through a bit of a rabbit hole a few weeks ago because of this tweet

and were like lol interesting. So.

[inquisitiveshashank]

#8

In India these days, a new debate is going on about the LGBTQ community , and the importance of the matter can be understood from the fact that the apex court of the land, the Supreme Court of India, has taken interest in this matter and is hearing the plea for giving a conclusive judgement.

Generally, I am clear about my stand on such matters and am always clear about my sides. But this time, it's quite difficult to choose. I am saying so not because of any grudges or any hatred for the community but because of the valid logic provided by the Union in the SupremeCourt. I personally believe in the cause of same-sex marriage and am greatly inclined towards it. This bias can be due to the institution I am a part of, which has always supported this cause. Yet when I see the larger picture of same-sex marriage, I believe that it's better not to pass any such law in haste and that we should first understand the concept from the perspective of society and law.

So where should we start? According to my limited knowledge or what I have perceived about this case till now, the lgbtq society is asking for legalising marriage and giving them the dignity and basic rights they deserve. As Menaka Guruswamy rightly pointed out, "marriage is not only a question of dignity; it is also a bouquet of rights that LGBTQ people are denied," which is absolutely correct.

But according to me, India as a society is still not ready for such a change. The community is constantly giving the example of countries like Canada and the Netherlands,  which have legalised same-sex marriage. But the reason that this won't work in India is due to the fact that, deep down somewhere, same-sex marriage propagates an "anti-birth mentality," and this is probably the reason why the birth rate of Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden is lower than other countries.

Elaborating further, it will be very hard for a couple to sustain same-sex marriage in India because of the stark cultural differences that we have with the countries that have legalised it. Moreover, a study with '' no basis :what the study don't tell us about same sex patenting'' questions the parenting skills of the same-sex parents and conclusively points out that even the couples that go for children are not able to provide them with the quality life they deserve. Another study named "A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation" points out that the children of homosexual couples are more prone to getting into bad company and bad habits than the heterosexual couple. Also, it is seen that life is difficult for the children of homosexual couples in places where same-sex marriage is legalised. At the end, it is concluded that the development of the child of a homosexual couple is slow in comparison to that of heterosexual couples. Hence, experimenting with the legalisation of same-sex marriage won't be any good, both for the couples and their future progeny.

Another major problem with respect to same-sex marriage is the danger of diseases. The writer of Homo sexuality'' and the politics of truths'' say that the same-sex couples are more susceptible to sexual disease than the normal couple, and the life expectancy of the homo men is low in comparison to the normal men. There are many other reports that point out that the danger of aids in homosexuals is high.

A study of the Netherlands' mental health survey and the Incides study pointed out that homocouples are more prone to bad mental health in comparison to the normal couple.

Hence, to conclude, I believe that the time is still not right to legalise same-sex marriage in India, as we as a society first need to understand the basics of same-sex marriage, we first need to educate the masses on this issue. We as a society first need to evolve on this matter and understand the need and cause of such relations, and this can't be done after the law comes into existence as Indian society will react opposingly to this phenomenon. We have to be very delicate on this matter because it will change the whole structure of society, marriage, and whatnot. Making a law without involving the society in the matter will be imposing the wants of the few on masses who are not ready for such a change. The same argument was put forward by J. Sai Deepak in court, as he commented that when we are talking about implementing such a big change in society, we need to involve the society in this matter; otherwise, the society won't react favourably to this, and this will be challenging for the homo couples. Hence, it is necessary for the lgbtq community to first educate the society and then ask for legalising same-sex marriage. Moreover, it's very complex for giving the legal status, as Tushar Mehta rightly pointed out that lgbtq also contains a plus, which is worth thinking about as we still don't know how many more such shades are there, and making law without a proper understanding will be no good.

In the end, all I believe is that though I might look inclined towards the centre more, I still sympathise with the lqbtq community and support them. No matter what the verdict, it will be a win-win for me.

[himhks91]

Watch "Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocate | CJI DY Chandrachud | Supreme Court of India" on YouTube

Suprem court of India is a great institution ,which has protected fundamental rights of our social system though many individuals do not know what r fundamental rights creatively.It has guarded indian democracy ,should have also helped much proactively in idea of justice but again it is already so burdened.

The idea of arbitration is an ancient concept found in institution such as panch permeshwar etc

should be used to get rid of its burden

[neosciencehub]

Hyderabad's Past and Future Explored in "Beyond Biryani" Book Launch

Hyderabad's Past and Future Explored in "Beyond Biryani" Book Launch @neosciencehub #neosciencehub #science #BeyondBiryani #DrJayeshRanjan #BookLaunch #Hyderabad #Telangana #MusiRiver #FutureCity #sports #environment #Urban

‘It is the work of a genius, an artist’, said Dr.Jayesh Ranjan, Telangana Special Chief Secretary for IT, about the book ‘Beyond Biryani – the Making of a Globalised Hyderabad’. He launched the book recently at Guruswamy centre in Secunderabad, along with other dignitaries including B.P. Acharya, retired IAS officer; Mohan Guruswamy, an economist and commentator; Sajjad Shahid from the Centre for…

[bigtvmojify]

Parody Guruswamy Exclusive Interview | Reverse Singer Parody Guruswmay | BIG TV Entertainment

Parody Guruswamy Exclusive Interview | Reverse Singer Parody Guruswmay | BIG TV Entertainment #parody #guruswamy #reversesinger #parodyguruswamy #exclusiveinterview #bigtventertainment #bigtvet Watch LIVE Stream : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJsgNKeq8c 🔔 Subscribe to our channel ✅ Stay Connected to Us. 👉 Website: https://ift.tt/CqZUst0 👉 Facebook: https://ift.tt/K3tlkjB 👉 Twitter:…

[hissterical-nyaan]

i love sr adv Rohtagi man is so slay pls

I would like to believe that Guruswamy, Katju, Kirpal and Rohatgi are like besties who sit around every evening with chai and bitch about the straights

[jsbmr06]

Salaar vs. Dunki: Prabhas Trails as SRK Dominates Advance Box Office with 150,000 Tickets Sold

Summary: Salaar, starring Prabhas vs. Shah Rukh Khan's Dunki, is on pre-sale. The Prashant Neel directorial has collected Rs 3.58 crore through pre-orders, taking the SRK film's total to Rs 4.46 crore.

Telugu actor Prabhas is all set to dazzle the silver screen with his upcoming film 'Salaar: Cease Fire, Part 1' which is scheduled to release on December 22nd. According to industry researcher Saknilk, Salaar has already generated a staggering Rs 3.58 crore in revenue through pre-orders and sales of over 150,000 tickets. In the Hindi-speaking world, Salaar has received over 18,000 pre-orders.

However, the film faces stiff competition from Shah Rukh Khan's much-anticipated film Dunki, which is scheduled to release on December 21. The competition is evident in the pre-bookings, with the SRK lead actress leading the way with pre-bookings worth Rs 4.46 crore. Advance sales for both works began on December 15th. Shah Rukh Khan's recent success with Jawan and Pattern gives Dunki an edge and makes him a formidable competitor to Prabhas's Salaar.

Read: Shah Rukh Khan’s ‘Dunki’ Potentially Rescheduled To Avoid Box Office Showdown With Prabhas’ ‘Salaar’

Directed by Prashan Sunil and produced by Vijay His Kiragandur under the banner of Hombale Films, 'Salaar' has an excellent cast, including Prabhas Raju Uppalapati, Shruti Haasan, and Madhu Guruswamy. He plays an important role. Earlier, Salaar producer Vijay Kirgandur spoke about the conflict with Dhanki in an interview with Bollywood Hungama. Mr. Vijay said the team does not want things to get "ugly" and is actively working with exhibitors and deale

"For solo releases, occupancy is usually around 60–70%. Some screens are given to Aquaman, but between Salaar and Dunki, the best-case scenario is 50–50 screens. We are hopeful of getting. In such a scenario, if we can achieve 90–100% occupancy, it will be a good outcome for both films," he said.

'Salaar: Part 1: Ceasefire' starring Prabhas will finally be released in theaters on December 22nd. The film will be released around the same time as Shah Rukh Khan's Dunki, which will be released in theaters on December 21st. The two films will face stiff competition at the box office.

The makers of both films have already started pre-sales overseas, but advance ticket sales for both films have not yet started in Japan.

According to Box Office Worldwide, Rajkumar Hirani's drama "Dunki" has grossed $566,000 as of Tuesday afternoon, including $185,000 in North America, $68k in the UK and between $8,000 and $120,000 in Australia. According to a report in the Times of India, the film sold about 5,400 tickets in 915 screenings at 320 locations in the United States.

Boman Irani, Vicky Kaushal, Taapsee Pannu, and others will also be seen in Dunki. The main character played by Shah Rukh and his three friends who want to travel to a distant country in search of better employment opportunities.

Meanwhile, Salaar will be released in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, and Hindi. The journey time is 2 hours and 55 minutes. Shruti Haasan, Jagapati Babu, Eshwari Rao, Suriya Reddy and others are playing the lead roles in the film.

[legalupanishad]

Supreme Court Denies Legalizing: Same-Sex Marriages

This article on 'Supreme Court Denies Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages in a 3:2 Verdict' was written by Ishika Agarwal, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

Since ancient times, marriage has been regarded as a sacred thread creating a bond between two people, and this bond not only connects two souls but also two families. In the past, marriage was only possible between a man and a woman. The concept of same-sex marriage or gay marriage did not exist at that time. Those who solemnized their marriage and lived together got legal and social recognition. Both statutory and personal laws have recognized heterosexual marriage, i.e., marriage between the opposite gender. However, marriage between people of the same sex was not recognized until recent times. There are only a few countries around the world that have given legal recognition to same-sex marriages. India has not accepted or granted legal recognition to same-sex marriage. In this article, we will discuss the recent decision of the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriages in India.

Background of the case

There was a total of 21 petitions filed by various same-sex couples, LGBTQIA+ activists, and transgender persons. These petitions took issue with the Special Marriage Act 1954, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, and the Foreign Marriage Act 1969. These petitions were transferred to the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on January 6, 2023. The petitioners, who are supported by prominent lawyers such as Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek, Manu Singhvi, Raju Ramachandran, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, K V Viswanathan, Saurabh Kirpal, and Menaka Guruswamy have highlighted the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals and urged the court to recognize such a union, which would enable them to lead a life of dignity comparable to that of heterosexual couples. They also urged that same-sex marriage should be given legal recognition under the Special Marriage Act so that they can avail the other benefits. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, argued that a total of 160 laws would be affected if marriage equality was granted and further added that it is the Parliament that can make, amend, or repeal the laws and Courts have not been conferred with such powers. Contact Us and avail the best assignment help for students available online! Further, the Union Government indicated its willingness to set up a committee to determine whether certain privileges can be bestowed upon same-sex and queer couples without formally recognizing their relationship as a form of marriage. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Madhya Pradesh State, opposed the petition along with senior advocate Kapil Sibal and senior advocate Arvind Datar.  The high-profile case was heard by a panel of five judges of the Supreme Court of India, including Chief Justice of the Union of India DY Chandrachud, comprising Justices SK Kaul and S Ravindran Bhat. The other members of the panel were Justices Hima Kohli and P. S. Narasimha.

Other countries' views on same-sex marriage

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a US-based LGBTQ advocacy group, 32 countries have recognized gay marriage. This marriage is recognized by court rulings only in 10 countries. These countries include the US, Australia, Ireland, Switzerland, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, and Canada. In the year 2019, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to legalize gay marriage. Most other countries around the world have already passed laws to allow same-sex couples to get married.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

On Tuesday, i.e., October 17, 2023, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court pronounced four judgements that were written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice PS Narasimha, respectively. CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul agreed, while Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha agreed on the same opinion.

Judgement of CJI DY Chandrachud

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) ruled that the Court of Justice is not able to invalidate the Special Marriage Act (SMA) as the Parliament and State Legislature have the exclusive power to do so, leaving the decision-making to them. The Court further asserted that any invalidity of the SMA would result in the loss of the advantages of progressive legislation. Furthermore, he said that the guidelines of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), a government agency under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, discriminate against atypical, unmarried couples adopting a child, thus violating Article 15 of the Constitution, and held that unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child. He was in favour of the recommendation made by the Union government to constitute a committee to determine the rights and entitlements of queer couples.

Judgement of Justice SK Kaul

Judge Kaul concurred with the view of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) that civil unions for same-sex couples should be recognised by law and that this is an important step towards achieving marriage equality.

Judgement of Justice Ravindra Bhat

He disagreed with the judgement of CJI DY Chandrachud and said that civil unions can only be granted via enacted laws. However, he also favoured the recommendation made by the Union Government. He further added that the present case is very different from previous cases in the way that previous cases were related to the protection of citizens’ rights from violence or harm caused to them by the state. He submitted that the right to marry is not a fundamental right. Justice Bhat stated that the Court does not have the power to constitute a legal framework in this regard, as there are several grounds that need to be taken into consideration, and it is only the legislature that can do so.

Judgement of Justice PS Narasimha

Consenting with Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha said that the right to marry is a statutory right and not a constitutional right. He further agreed with Justice Ravindra Bhat with respect to the CARA regulations and said that unmarried couples, including queer couples, do not have the right to adopt, and these regulations could not be declared unconstitutional. With respect to schemes of gratuity, pensions, insurance, etc. that are not applicable to queer couples, legislative policies in that respect should be taken into consideration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court refused to give constitutional validity to same-sex marriages by a 3:2 majority and also held civil unions unconstitutional. The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the Union Government, as stated by the Solicitor General of India, to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the rights, entitlements, and other concerns related to same-sex couples but refused to validate the adoption by unmarried couples and queer couples.

Reference

'Same-Sex Marriage Verdict: SC refuses to give marriage equality rights to LGBTQIA+ community in India', LiveMint, 17 October 2023, Available at: https://www.livemint.com/news/samesex-marriage-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-verdict-lgbtqia-special-marriage-act-cji-chandrachud-11697505822651.html Padmakshi Sharma, Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgement In Same-Sex Marriage Case Tomorrow, LiveLaw, 16 October 2023, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-to-pronounce-judgement-in-same-sex-marriage-case-tomorrow-240282 'Same-sex marriage: Key points from Supreme Court verdict', Times of India, 17 October 2023, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/same-sex-marriage-key-points-from-supreme-court-verdict/articleshow/104486756.cms?from=mdr Read the full article

[freelawbydjure]

Tamil Nadu’s appeal against Madras HC order to carry out RSS Route March dismissed by Supreme Court

11 April, 2023

Today, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal dismissed an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the February 10 order given by the Madras High Court. The rejected judgment of the Madras HC was regarding the permission granted to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route march on rescheduled dates without restrictions in the Tamil Nadu state. Earlier, the top Court adjourned the matter and stated that a discussion on suitable routes for the march will be done by the parties.

In October 2022, RSS sought permission from Tamil Nadu’s government to carry out march to mark Gandhi Jayanti and ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ in the state. This was refused by the government ; therefore, RSS approached the High Court. A Single-judge bench on November 4, 2022, granted permission to RSS to conduct march under certain conditions including restriction of march in enclosed spaces or indoors. Further, these restrictions were abolished by the High Court on the ground that the protest may lead to a healthy democracy.

In today’s hearing, Advocate Archana Pathak Dave, Santosh Kumar, Mugdha Pande and Praneet Pranav appeared for RSS along with Sebior Advocates Guru Krishna Kumar, Menaka Guruswamy and Mahesh Jethmalani. Tamil Nadu Government was represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. After hearing the contentions from both sides, the bench ordered, “All SLPs dismissed.”

Also Read: Legal News

[kitty-lemon]

Not Menaka Guruswamy....