The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has expressed strong disagreement with the Bar Council of India바카라s public statement opposing the hearing on the legalisation of same-sex marriages in the Supreme Court.
A unanimous resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the SCBA condemned the BCI바카라s comment, saying it was 바카라highly inappropriate바카라 or the lawyer바카라s body to issue a press statement while the matter was being heard in the Supreme Court.
바카라The SCBA Executive Committee feels it is highly inappropriate for the BCI to issue a Press Statement바카라opposing a hearing of the matter before the Hon바카라ble Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Court to hear the petition and decide whether matter should be adjudicated by the Court or left to the wisdom of Parliament,바카라 the resolution read.
The apex court body further clarified that their statement should not be misconstrued as either supporting or opposing the petitioners.
What did the BCI resolution say?
On April 23, the BCI passed a resolution opposing the grant of legal recognition to same-sex marriages, emphasising that India is a diverse country with a mosaic of beliefs, and any matter that is likely to tinker with the fundamental social structure should necessarily come through the legislative process.
The statement of the lawyers바카라 body came amid the Centre바카라s argument that Supreme Court should 바카라let the Parliament decide바카라 on granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.
RTI filed against BCI resolution
BCI바카라s resolution was condemned by 36 queer collectives from over 600 Indian law schools who called it 바카라ignorant, harmful, and antithetical to our Constitution and the spirit of inclusive social life바카라. Subsequently, an RTI (Right to Information) application was filed in reference to the Bar Council of India바카라s (BCI) recent quoted data in a resolution that more than 바카라99.9 per cent of people in the country바카라 oppose same-sex marriage.
The RTI application, filed and shared on social media by a certain Akshay Godi, sought the documents to understand the statistics. It also sought to learn whether officers of the BCI have undergone periodic sensitisation and awareness training about the plight of LGBT persons as ordered in the judgement of Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India.
