You are currently viewing Center rejects plea for live streaming in Delhi High Court

Center rejects plea for live streaming in Delhi High Court

The center has opposed the live-streaming of proceedings in the country’s case of same-sex marriage recognition and registration before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the matter is neither a violation of a fundamental right nor a matter of national concern.

In response to the request for the trial to be live-streamed, the Department of Justice and Justice has argued that permission to live-stream the trial on the merits must not be granted as it would serve no purpose.

“A matter must be decided by the party in substance and by the court on the basis of law and fact and must not attract or provoke public attention. The complainant seeks to create unnecessary hype around the matter being examined by this court.” the answer is.

The request was made by three professionals from Mumbai and Karnataka in the petition filed by Abhijit Iyer Mitra seeking the registration of marriages of LGBTQIA couples under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The notice in the application was issued in November 2021. It indicated that a significant number of people (about 7-8% of the country’s population) are interested in the proceedings and the outcome of this matter. However, they are unable to attend the proceedings due to space limitations in courtrooms and the limitation of technological platforms such as Cisco Webex, which is currently used by the High Court for hybrid functions

Referring to the case entitled Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India Regarding the live streaming of court proceedings on matters of constitutional and national importance, the response asks that the request be dismissed as live streaming can only be allowed after a comprehensive regulatory framework, including data protection, is in place became.

“The present matter is not an appropriate case where live streaming of the proceedings is desirable as it concerns the administration of justice. A proper legal framework must be in place before live streaming of the proceedings can be permitted India reserves the right to file a more detailed affidavit in response to the present application with the approval of this Honorable Court, if necessary, at a later date since this affidavit was filed in the limited time available to Respondent. says the answer.

The response went on to say that the majority of the Indian population was not greatly affected by the matter at hand and that the applicant was trying to “create a dramatic impression of the proceedings before the court and win sympathy”.

“The case law does not affect the number of people who watch court hearings or subscribe to the YouTube channel showing such cases Facts The social reach of live streaming cannot be part of the case law,” adds the answer.

It also argues that the applicant’s only intention was to create hallucinations of public interest and sensationalize the matter.

“The value of a matter in court and its outcome does not depend on any melodrama that the applicant intends to bring forward and therefore the motion is founded on ulterior motive. The complainant attempts to use the judicial forum to arouse public sympathy and open perspectives on unwanted attention to the issue. This honorable dish requires no greater reach or audience than what is already available for the procedures being conducted on a daily basis. the answer is.

It adds “The applicant seeks to distance himself from the legal and constitutional flaws in the written application and to attempt a misinterpretation of the open justice concept proposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant’s wish is to draw global attention to certain because he believes he has it.”

About the requests

The petition, filed by Abhijit Iyer Mitra, calls for marriages of LGBTQIA couples to be registered under the Hindu Marriage Law. It is argued that the language used in Hindu marriage law is gender-neutral and does not specifically prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

In another by Dr. Kavita Arora is requested to issue an order to the Marriage Officer in South East Delhi to consummate her marriage to her partner under the Special Marriage Act. for them, the basic right to free choice of partner for marriage according to Article 21 of the Basic Law also applies to same-sex couples.

The plea brought by Joydeep Sengupta, an OCI cardholder, and his partner Russell Blaine Stephens is praying for a court declaration that “A foreign spouse of an Indian citizen or OCI cardholder is entitled to register as an OCI under the Citizenship Act regardless of Sex, gender or sexual orientation of the applicant spouse.”

The plea alleges that since Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, no distinction is made between heterosexual, same-sex or queer spouses of a person married to a registered and existing foreign national of India be declared entitled to apply for an OCI card as a spouse for two years.

The High Court has also issued notices on two related petitions, one seeking recognition of a transgender person’s marriage and the other seeking recognition of a lesbian couple’s marriage.

Case title: ABHIJIT IYER MITRA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Leave a Reply