Will fight polls only from New Delhi', Kejriwal shoots down BJP's claim
New Delhi(PTI): Quashing BJP leaders' claims that he would contest the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections from a second seat out of fear of losing from New Delhi, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday said he will contest the polls from one seat only.
Kejriwal also asserted that the Assembly polls are not an INDA bloc affair as there is a direct contest between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Delhi.
A three-time sitting MLA from New Delhi since 2013, Kejriwal this time is locked in an intense triangular contest against the sons of two former chief ministers of Delhi.
While the BJP has fielded former chief minister Sahib Singh Verma's son Parvesh Verma, Congress has given ticket to Sandeep Dikshit whose mother Sheila Dikshit was a three-term chief minister of Delhi.
"I am contesting one seat only," Kejriwal said at a press conference when asked about BJP's claims that he was going to fight from a second seat out of fear of losing from New Delhi.
The AAP leader's clarification came after BJP's IT cell chief Amit Malviya claimed in a post on X that fearing his imminent defeat from New Delhi, Kejriwal is making "baseless allegations" about voter list in his constituency and "talking" about contesting from two seats.
The AAP leaders have accused the BJP of filing applications in bulk from different constituencies, including New Delhi, for the deletion of thousands of AAP supporters' names from the electoral roll.
At the presser, Kejriwal said a meeting of AAP leaders with officials of the Election Commission is due Thursday evening, in which all the issues, including deletion of voters' names, will be discussed.
The AAP supremo also thanked INDIA bloc members, including the Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT), for extending support to AAP for the Assembly elections.
The Congress, which leads the anti-BJP INDIA bloc, is going solo in the Delhi polls and has so far announced names of 48 candidates.
The 70-member Delhi Assembly will go to polls on February 5. The results will be out on February 8.
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.
