Tag «娱乐地图YPG»

Consensual Cohabitation Between Two Adults Of Same Sex Not Illegal; They Have A Right To Live Together Even Outside The Wedlock: Uttarakhand HC [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesConsensual Cohabitation Between Two Adults Of Same Sex Not Illegal; They Have A Right To Live Together Even Outside The Wedlock: Uttarakhand HC [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK18 Jun 2020 11:11 PMShare This – x”[It] is the strength provided by our constitution, which lies in its acceptance of plurality and diversity of the culture. Intimacy of marriage, including the choice of partner, which individual make, on whether or not to marry and whom to marry are the aspects which exclusively lies outside the control of the State or the Society.” The Uttarakhand High Court recently made…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”[It] is the strength provided by our constitution, which lies in its acceptance of plurality and diversity of the culture. Intimacy of marriage, including the choice of partner, which individual make, on whether or not to marry and whom to marry are the aspects which exclusively lies outside the control of the State or the Society.” The Uttarakhand High Court recently made significant remarks with respect to the rights of adult homosexual couples to choose their life partner and to live with each other, without any pressure from their parents or the society. “Consensual cohabitation between two adults of the same sex cannot in our understanding be illegal far or less a crime because its a fundamental right which is being guaranteed to the person under article 21 of the Constitution of India, which inheres within its ambit and it is wide enough in its amplitude to protect an inherent right of self determination with regards to one’s identity and freedom of choice with regards to the sexual orientation of choice of the partner,” Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma observed. The remarks were made by the court while hearing a habeas corpus writ petition, filed by one Madhu Bala, against illegal confinement of her alleged partner Meenakshi, by Meenakshi’s mother and brother. Though the petition came to be dismissed on account of Meenakshi’s reluctance to continue her alleged relationship with the Petitioner however, the court made significant remarks with respect to rights of homosexual couples, where they want to live together. “Even if the parties, who are living together though they are belonging to the same gender; they are not competent to enter into a wedlock, but still they have got a right to live together even outside the wedlock. It would further be not out of pretext to mention that a live-in relationship has now being recognized by the legislature itself, which has found its place under the provisions of protection of women from Domestic Violence Act,” the bench held. The bench further remarked that while deciding cases such as the instant one, the court should not engage itself in social mores. It held that right to liberty and freedom of choice are “constitutional values” that cannot be abridged. “…Social values and morals they do have their space, but they are not above the constitutional guarantee of freedom assigned to a citizen of a country. This freedom is both a constitutional as well as a human right. Hence, the said freedom and the exercise of jurisdiction in a writ courts should not transgress into an area of determining the suitability of a partner to a marital life, that decision exclusively rests with the individual themselves that the State, society or even the court cannot intrude into the domain.” The court added, “[It] is the strength provided by our constitution, which lies in its acceptance of plurality and diversity of the culture. Intimacy of marriage, including the choice of partner, which individual make, on whether or not to marry and whom to marry are the aspects which exclusively lies outside the control of the State or the Society.” Reliance was placed on the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, AIR 2018 SC 346, “it needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual’s life has its own significance. He or she is entitled to make his or her choice. The court can, so long as the choice remains, assume the role of parnis patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the courts shall not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiments of the mother or egotism of the father. We say so without any reservations.” Thereby the court concluded that in cases such as the instant one, it has to proceed “exclusively” on the basis of the detenu’s statement. “The court as an upholder of the constitutional freedom has to safeguard that such a relationship where there is a choice exclusively vested with a major person has to be honoured by the courts depending upon the statements recorded by the individual before the court. xxx In such type of circumstances it is exclusively the statement recorded of the detenue, who is said to be wrongfully/illegaly confined and who is said to be having a consensual or a lesbian relationship with the petitioner, which becomes of a prime importance, to be considered while parting with the judgment,” the court said. In the present case, the detenu expressed her unwillingness to live with the Petitioner and submitted that the Respondents, i.e., her mother and brother did not put any pressure upon her. The court dismissed the petition thus, “In view of the aforesaid statements and affidavit on record, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed; because of the statement recorded by the detenue herself before this Court today, that she is not under pressure or a wrongful confinement of respondent nos. 4 and 5. Thus, there could not be any writ of habeas corpus.”Petitioner was represented by Advocate Abhijay Negi; State was represented by Deputy Advocate General Sandeep Tandon with Mamta Joshi and Private Respondents by Advocate Jayvardhan Kandpal. Click Here To Download Order Read Order Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Elgaar Parishad- Sharjeel Usmani To Appear For Investigation On March 18

first_imgNews UpdatesElgaar Parishad- Sharjeel Usmani To Appear For Investigation On March 18 Sharmeen Hakim15 March 2021 8:19 PMShare This – xAligarh Muslim University alumni Shajeel Usmani assured the Bombay High Court on Monday that he will continue cooperating with the Pune Police, investigating his speech for the 2021 Elgaar Parishad Conclave, and undertook to appear before investigators on March 18, 2021. A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale was hearing a petition by Usmani seeking quashing of the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginAligarh Muslim University alumni Shajeel Usmani assured the Bombay High Court on Monday that he will continue cooperating with the Pune Police, investigating his speech for the 2021 Elgaar Parishad Conclave, and undertook to appear before investigators on March 18, 2021. A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale was hearing a petition by Usmani seeking quashing of the FIR filed against him at Swargate Police station, Pune, under section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place..) of the IPC on a complaint by the secretary of the Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha, Pradeep Gawade. Gawde is a former member of ABVP. During the hearing on Monday, senior advocate Mihir Desai submitted that Sharjeel had appeared before investigators, as promised in the last hearing. He said Sharjeel was not denying his speech, but the question is, would it constitute an offence u/s 153A of the IPC. “He has used some harsh words in his speech, words I would not have used. But the speech needs to be seen as a whole,” Desai argued. Justice Shinde then began reading from a translated copy of the speech, in which Sharjeel says he doesn’t have faith in the judiciary and that the country is in a State of war. “I started by saying the speech has certain harsh words…” Desai said. Justice Shinde then said the court is open to criticism. “There were three pillars of democracy, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Now there is a fourth pillar, the media. We are open to criticism. The speech needs to be read in its entirety.” Desai said it may take time for the court to apply its minds to the entire speech and suggested the case be kept for hearing on another date. “Three aspects need to be considered; What is the message sent by the speech? Who it was addressed to? And the context in which it was made.” The bench then asked the prosecutor if they required Usmani for further investigation and if he would make a statement not to take coercive action till then. Public Prosecutor JP Yagnik said Usmani would be required for further investigation. He refused to make a statement against taking coercive action but assured the court that the investigating officer was aware of guidelines for arrest as laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar on the rules of arrest and there would be no breach. The Supreme Court had observed that there must be strict compliance of 41(1)(b) of the CrPC if a person is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment, less than seven years, and she/he cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that the offence was committed. “Police officer before arrest, in such cases, has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured,” the SC noted. Yagnik then submitted that Usmani could appear on a preferred date to which Desai said he will join in the investigation on March 18. He assured the court that Usmani would make statements in the media after a question fell from the court. The case was then adjourned for hearing to March 22, 2021Next Storylast_img read more