The Centre has rejected a request by LGBTQ couples for live broadcasting of proceedings in the Delhi High Court on a batch of petitions to recognise same-sex marriage under various laws, claiming that the issue is not of national concern.
According to the Centre’s affidavit, the applicants were aiming to create a dramatic impression of the court proceedings in order to gain sympathy.
The Ministry of Law and Justice has claimed that live broadcasting of the hearings in the case should not be allowed because it would be useless.
“A matter needs to be agitated by the party on merits and the court to decide on the basis of law and facts and not soliciting or evoking public attention.”
The court was hearing a number of applications from same-sex couples seeking declarations under the Special Marriage Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Foreign Marriage Act recognising their marriages. Akhilesh Godi, Prasad Raj Dandekar, and Shripad Ranade, citizens of Karnataka and Mumbai, made the application for live broadcasting of proceedings in Abhijit Iyer Mitra’s pending petition.
It requested that the high court registry make plans to live stream the case’s final arguments on YouTube or any other site.In November 2021, notice was given in the application. It claimed that a large number of individuals (about 7-8 percent of the country’s population) are interested in the procedures and outcome of this case.
They are, however, unable to observe the proceedings due to space constraints in Courtrooms and limitations of technology platforms such as Cisco Webex, which the High Court is now using for hybrid operations.
The Centre opposed the application and requested its dismissal, claiming that live streaming may only be permitted if a thorough framework of laws is established, including data protection.
“The instant matter is not a fit case where live streaming of the proceedings is desirable as it affects the cause of administration of justice. Before allowing live streaming of proceeding appropriate regulatory framework needs to be put in place.”
It stated that the petitioners’ intent appears to be mala fide, since they were attempting to gain needless exposure and attract undesired public attention, and that every case that comes before the court is important, and that live streaming may not be practical and possible for every situation.
According to the affidavit, giving permission for live streaming in this case will serve no purpose, and the case should be litigated on the merits, with the court ruling on the basis of law and facts rather than soliciting or evoking public attention.
The Supreme Court has expressly stated that live broadcasting is possible in instances of national importance, according to the affidavit.
The court said, “in the present matter, neither violation of any fundamental right is involved nor is it in any way one of national importance. Majority of the Indian population is not very much affected by the present matter and the proceedings thereof.”
The application cited the High Courts of Gujarat, Odisha, and Karnataka as having taken the initiative and drafted guidelines for live streaming of proceedings.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decriminalisation of consensual homosexual conduct, Mitra and three others argue that marriages between same-sex couples are not conceivable, and they want a declaration to recognise such marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act.
Another lawsuit was brought by two women who wanted to marry under the Special Marriage Act and were challenging the statute’s provisions that do not allow for same-sex marriages.
The other plea was filed by two men who married in the United States but were denied registration due to the Foreign Marriage Act.
Another petition proposes that a foreign-origin spouse of an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder be allowed to apply for OCI registration regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
In addition, two lesbians who married in Varanasi in February 2018 have submitted a petition to have their “marriage” recognised.
The High Court has also served notice on a petition seeking to recognise a transgender person’s marriage.