The Allahabad High Court recently granted police protection to a gay couple after noting the court was not against live relationships.
Essentially, the Bench of Judge Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Judge Ajai Tyagi dealt with a protective plea from an Anju Singh and her living partner, who went to the High Court claiming that they would be harassed and would not be allowed to live in peace by private respondents if the protection was not theirs granted.
They argued before the Court that they are the adult girls who wish to live in a couple and that they are couples of the same sex.
They also argued that their parents threatened to kill the applicants if they did not end their relationship and they also threatened to falsely implicate the applicants in a criminal case.
In this context, stressing that the Court is not against life relationships, the Court ordered the police to grant them protection after checking all documents.
the tribunal also referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi et al., (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. UP State et al, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (Delhi NCT), (2011) 6 SCC 396.
With these comments, this petition has been partially upheld.
Significantly, observing that living as a couple cannot be done to the detriment of the social fabric of this country, the High Court of Allahabad, in August 2021, rejected the protection plea of a married woman living with her partner with an exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000.
Qualifying his life relationship with his partner as an illicit relationship, the Banc de Judge Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker (which is also part of the present case) and Judge Subhash Chand observed as follows:
“Ordering the police to grant them protection may indirectly endorse such illicit relationships.“
In June 2021, the Allahabad District Court had, in the case of a young couple who wanted to live as a couple, said that it was not against living as a couple, but had rejected a request for protection. of a couple who wanted to live as a couple as the plea was filed during the subsistence of the marriage of one of the applicants.
However, recently the Allahabad High Court observed that life relationships should be viewed from the perspective of personal autonomy rather than notions of social morality.
Significantly, during the hearing of a protection plea filed by a same-sex couple, the Madras High Court on Monday (22sd March) expressed a desire to hear parties behind closed doors given the sensitivity of the case and therefore posted the case for hearing on March 29.
Significantly, the judiciary N. Anand Venkatesh observed,
“The case in question needs to be treated with more sensitivity and empathy and it is an example of how society, even today, struggles to accept the homosexual orientation. Given the sensitivity of the issue at hand, this Court wants to hear the parties in camera. “
Again, dealing with a protection plea filed by a same-sex couple, Judge N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court on Monday (29e mars) noticed that he was trying to breaking his own preconceptions on the matter and he was evolving.
Judicial Venkatesh last week expressed desire to hear from the same-sex couple behind closed doors given the sensitivity of the subject.
Recently, the Delhi High Court listed a batch of applications for recognition and registration of same-sex marriages under the law for a final hearing on November 30.
The bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, meanwhile, allowed all parties time to complete their oral arguments.
The judiciary heard a bunch of petitions filed by Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Vaibhav Jain, Dr Kavita Arora, OCI cardholder Joydeep Sengupta and her partner Russell Blaine Stephens.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the central government argued that “spouse” means husband and wife, “marriage” is a term associated with heterosexual couples, and therefore there is no need to file a specific response regarding the law. the citizenship.
“The law as it is … marriage is permitted between the biological man and the biological woman,” he said.
The SG further claimed that there is a misconception by the petitioners regarding the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized homosexual acts between adults in private. he said:
“The question here is whether marriage is allowed between same-sex couples. Your Lordships must decide. There is a misconception about the Navtej Singh Johar case. He just decriminalizes … He doesn’t talk about marriage. “
Case title – Km. Anju Singh @ Anju and another v. State Of UP and 6 others
Click here to download the order