Rahul mocks Modi for garlanding Basavanna in London
Bengaluru, April 26: Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Thursday took a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his garlanding of Karnataka's 12th century social reformer Basavanna's bust in London recently and accused him of not practising the saint poet's preachings.
"Modi has garlanded the bust of Basavanna, but does not follow his words or practise the reformer's preaching to 'Walk the Talk'," said Gandhi at a public meeting at Honnavar in Karnataka's Uttara Kannada district, about 450 km from here.
During his three-day visit to London from April 18 to 20, Modi garlanded Basavanna's bust located at Albert Embankment Gardens on the banks of Thames River in the British capital on April 18.
Later, during an interaction -- Bharat ki Baat, Sabke Saath -- with the Indian Diaspora at the Westminster Hall in London, Modi mentioned Basavanna's "vachanas" (sermons) and how they are so relevant even in the 21st century.
Criticising Modi for calling the Siddaramaiah government in the state "a 10 per cent commission sarkar", Gandhi questioned the Prime Minister's right to speak on corruption, sitting next to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s chief ministerial face B.S. Yeddyurappa, who "went to jail on corruption charges".
As the party's first Chief Minister in south India, Yeddyurappa resigned on July 31, 2011 after the state's anti-graft watchdog (Lokayukta) named him in a probe report on the multi-crore mining scam that rocked the state for over a decade from 2001-10.
Gandhi, who is on a two-day visit to the poll-bound southern state starting Thursday, launched the ruling party's campaign for the May 12 legislative assembly elections in the coastal region.
He participated in road shows, held interactive sessions and addressed corner meetings in Ankola, Kumta, Honnavar and Bhatkal in Uttara Kannada district.
At Kumta, Gandhi said Siddaramaiah had waived loans of thousands of farmers to provide them relief from distress and agrarian crisis due to successive droughts in the state, whereas the Modi government did nothing for them.
Gandhi will release the party's election manifesto in the port city of Mangaluru on Friday, along with senior leaders like Karnataka in-charge K.C. Venugopal and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
