The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has expressed strong disagreement with the Bar Council of India’s 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 BCI’s comment, saying it was “highly inappropriate” or the lawyer’s body to issue a press statement while the matter was being heard in the Supreme Court.
“The SCBA Executive Committee feels it is highly inappropriate for the BCI to issue a Press Statement…opposing a hearing of the matter before the Hon’ble 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,” the resolution read.
Advertisement
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 lawyers’ body came amid the Centre’s argument that Supreme Court should “let the Parliament decide” on granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Advertisement
RTI filed against BCI resolution
BCI’s resolution was condemned by 36 queer collectives from over 600 Indian law schools who called it “ignorant, harmful, and antithetical to our Constitution and the spirit of inclusive social life”. Subsequently, an RTI (Right to Information) application was filed in reference to the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) recent quoted data in a resolution that more than “99.9 per cent of people in the country” 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.
