Talk:Supriyo v. Union of India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add Reactions specific to the Case alone[edit]

Please add information that are related directly to the case alone. Information about any political or religious organisation talking about LGBT rights without mentioning same-sex marriage or Supriyo v. Union of India is irrelvant to this page. You can add those information to pages like LGBT rights in India,Homosexuality in India, Hinduism and LGBT topics, Christianity and homosexuality. I agree with the points raised by 49.207.202.116 here. Otherwise, reaction section would be a list of all the remarks about LGBT rights made by various socio political organisations during the case. Instead, it should be about remarks about the case, or atleast about anticpated legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India.Wiki6995 (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concern, if the vandalism continues, it might be better off to remove the reactions sections. The in addition to the direct relation to the case or anticipated legal recognition, it must also be from someone authoritative, or some impactful action, such as protesting outside the Supreme Court. Information about social media stunts, like this babbarji person distributing pamphlets, or social media trolls isn't worthy of mentioning. More trolls will come out as the case gathers media attention, it would result in diluting the information if we pay attention every social media trolls. 2861969nyc (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @49.207.202.116. There seems to be no direct connection between same-sex marriage case in Kerala, and the Church's comment. Church's comment seem to be more related to the fact priests performing same-sex marriage in Germany and Austria. I find it interesting. Especially, since the catholic Church in Germany and Austria has been changing with time, whereas one in Kerala refuses to do so. 2861969nyc (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now that I have read it. The Decree issued by Vatican speaks about Priests conducting the marriage alone, and in fact, it supports civil laws for same-sex marriage. It is irrelevant here. I think it would be smart to restrict the reacts to remarks about the case, or atleast about anticpated legal recognition, and nothing else. If people keep vandalising the article, we might be better off removing the religion, maybe even political section, instead of adding irrelevant information. Wiki6995 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

Hey 49.207.202.116, anr is a good substitute for the anonymised petitioners represented by A,B,C,D,E,F.I don't understand what further information the alphabets can provide that the anr. cannot. If you have any reasons, please explain.

I have no concern using Anr. except that Ors. might be more appropriate here. If your only reason to use Anr. instead of the anonymised petitioners is to save space, the same will hold true for using Ors. & Anr. consistently everywhere rather than naming the petitioners in all the connected cases. The anonymity in this case had particular relevance as the reasons for anonymising the petitioner names was very important in the petition due to imminent threat to life, limb and liberty as the anonymous petitioners case makes for a solid case reflecting the lived realities of those individuals. However, I am not very hung up on either of the usages. 49.207.205.0 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the use of Ors. Use of Anr. was a oversight on my part. Wiki6995 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding unrelated information[edit]

Hey Septemberisnottheseptmonth, stop adding information irrelevant to the case. Unless a religious organisation has commented specifically on this case, it doesn't belong here. Add the information you have gathered in Homosexuality in India or Recognition of same-sex unions in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2861969nyc (talk • contribs) 11:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is either religiously or politically motivated. He is repeating the talking points even when the talking points were called out in the court for being wrong. For example, in the court, the judges went accepted the petition after the government tried to dismiss it saying the Court cannot legislate. But the petitioners didn't even ask for it. They asked for judicial review. Funnily enough, one of the petitioner even mentioned how anti-marriage equality governments across the world has tried to play dumb by confusing judicial review power with legislative power. Wiki6995 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Americans tend to fight LGBTQ rights differently to those in Asia. I notice that it is always Americans who oppose the information I add to Wikipedia, which would probably be due to the racism that the US imposes on Indian people. But generally speaking what I oppose is Wiki6995 edits and nothing that 2861969nyc has written. Wiki6995 seems to be editing with a anti-Hindu pro-Muslim slant, whereas 2861969nyc has been more neutral. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have don't support or oppose any religion. Muslim groups haven't commented yet on the same-sex marriage case. When they do, it will be added. I don't plan to make any religious group look good. Neither hinduism or islam or christian. Any religiously group that explicitly express support or opposition will be noted Wiki6995 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop editorlializing and removing material supportive of gay marriage from Hindu groups. It's a widespread vocal minority in India that would rather hate on LGBTQ in order to advance their own left-wing politics. The RSS did not comment on gay marriage whatsoever, positively or negatively, but did state a positive comment on LGBTQ so there is no point shoe horning gay marriage negativity in there. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I simply added the information from the Bloomberg article. I don't care about negativity or positivity. It's you who wants to showcase the various organisation in postive light. While I try to stick to the case, and the articles published related to the case. Wiki6995 (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You found information that took a positive comment about LGBTQ from the RSS and tried to find a negative view on it. The RSS did not comment about gay marriage whatsoever. It's a view from Bloomberg and not the RSS. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is information specifically related to the case you can add here. Otherwise, there are so many pages where you can share the information you collected on Hinduism and LGBTQ. Which is what I have told you from the beginning. Its nothing to do with racism. Its everything to do with relevance. 2861969nyc (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to discuss a case involving gay marriage without discussing the history of gay marriage in India. Of course it is relevant, but I will stop adding it there and instead focus of de-editorializing the work of Wiki6995.
On a side note it is often Indian Americans who tend to be the most aggressive against LGBTQ in India, because they are approaching LGBTQ politics from what works in American politics but fails in Indian and global politics. I'm Indian and LGBTQ myself, and have been active in fighting LGBTQ politics since high school. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, you are too close to it be unbiased. You are editing the page like you PR personnel of a political or religious organisation. You care about negativity and positivity. Instead of simply stating the fact. 2861969nyc (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are on the same page though. Wiki6995 is not writing factually but is copying editorial work from Bloomberg. RSS did not comment on gay marriage whatsoever and was not asked about gay marriage. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read about wikipedia policy on primary sources. Organiser and Pachjanya would be considered primary sources and rejected as source of information. Bloomberg just notes the lack of comment on same-sex marriage when the top court in the country is hearing the case. It's a fact. I don't get what you mean by editorlializing. It is simply the fact that RSS head didn't comment on same sex marriage, while discussing lgbt rights, as the top court is hearing the case. Wiki6995 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to read the Wikipedia policy on Public Domain and editorialization. You need to state it as such if you want to include the information "Bloomberg noted the lack of comment on same-sex marriage". RSS did not stop short of saying anything factually. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore I am not opposed to negative material about Hindu groups when properly sourced and verified. I did not remove the material about the Hindu group protesting the marriage, nor about the BJP MP protesting the case. I did however remove the RSS comment about gay marriage because the RSS have never spoken on the topic during the interview. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who wrote this as well "He said LGBTQ people have an inalienable right to live in India. He invoked Hindu epics and mythology to say that transgender people and homosexual relationships have existed throughout history." I wrote the whole section on RSS in fact. It was balanced in stating how far they have come in terms of supporting LGBTQ, and where they fall short. It is you who is obsessed with that criticism. You claim that you care about LGBT issues, but it sounds more like you care about RSS being presented in a good light. Wiki6995 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the bloomberg article noting that RSS didn't not take stance on same sex marriage is editorialising? Its simply a fact, given lgbt issues was discussed and same sex marriage is being considered by apex court. 2861969nyc (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the same-sex marriage issue wasn't a major discussion topic so I'm not sure where you getting that information from. You are attributing a comment from Bloomberg about the RSS to what the RSS personally said. If you want to use the comment then you need to attribute it separately.
And a lot of other issues are also under discussion by the Supreme Court as well, such as LGBTQ adoption and European/Indian style live-in couples. The RSS also did not comment on those issues. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then there is no need for section on RSS if they are irrelevant to the case, Wiki6995 (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like some consistency maintained here Wiki6995. I propose to remove the section under 'Christianity' because your citations don't show any link between the hearings in Nikesh & Anr. v. Union of India and the statements made by the Church in Kerala. Please feel free to either edit the citations or remove the section altogether. 49.207.205.0 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, it is not me who added it. I tried to make it relevant. There are few editors who keep adding information that are not related to same-sex marriage case in India.
They also keep adding RSS talking about everything except for same-sex marriage. Wiki6995 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Wiki6995 edited the section to include circumstances in an attempt to make it relevant. There has been pro-hindu vandals, who add irrelevant comments about Hindu Groups supporting Same-sex marriage cases in foreign countries, but haven't mentioned a single world about Supriyo v. Union of India. Or, RSS talking about LGBT rights issues, except for the issues this Case is related to, marriage & parenthood. However, I think the Churches statements still add value to the article. Especially, since it notes that an Indian Catholic Church intends to oppose same-sex marriage, when Churchs in Germany & Austria are becoming inclusive in spite of opposition from Vatican. 2861969nyc (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free[edit]

Hey Razer2115, Isn't Court filings part of Public Domain under Indian Copyright Act, 1957? --2861969nyc (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are various guidelines regarding copvio and copyrighted content on Wikipedia. You can read more about it at - WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE but to sum it up - It is almost never a good idea to copy paste something from anywhere on Wikipedia. Razer(talk) 15:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pleadings are available in public domain and citations for the same should be provided appropriately from PDFs available via reputed legal websites such as LiveLaw, Bar&Bench, LawBeat or other reliable sources. 49.207.202.116 (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Razer2115, I believe the non free template message could be removed now? 49.207.202.116 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the maintenance tag as the issue appears to be fixed now. Razer(talk) 13:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with Live-In Couples case[edit]

A lot of what is written in this article may be out-of-date considering the Supreme Court expanding the definition of family to include homosexual live-in couples:

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/supreme-court-on-unmarried-partnerships-queer-relationships-family-unit-as-real-as-read-here-11661705797437.html

Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is based on the issues raised by the petitioners in front of the said Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. They could have dismissed it if they thought these issues were already settled. Also, there is a huge difference, legally, between married couples and couples in a "live-in" relationship. Wiki6995 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Indian culture there is less of a difference between legally married couples (which is what this article discusses) and common law couples (which are not a legally defined concept). Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here is out out date. The person providing the information seems to be very closely connected with the cases at hand. Therefore this content might need moderation. The case where you are reporting about expanding the definition of family was unrelated to same sex or live in couples. The case was one where a woman had her first biological child from the marriage with her husband who already had two children from the first marriage. Based on this her employer denied her maternity leave saying the policy allowed for maternity leave only for the first two children (where this was her first pregnancy in reality). In light of this, the court ruled in favour of the woman saying she was entitled to the maternity leave. Now in the said judgement the court made some incidental remarks saying there are families of various sorts including the one such as above and queer relations. This is plainly obiter and has no relevance to the cases being discussed here. 49.207.202.116 (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That however has a bearing for LGBTQ live-in couples and those married under a common law marriage due to the expansion of family law. In India the vast majority of marriages are common law marriages. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Family law being expanded or not would be left for the specific case(s) to be decided when queer persons go to court. A mere statement being made in a judgement that has no bearing on said subject would be treated as obiter. While one can assume things would be decided one way or another when that happens, that is by no means an assurance because what a certain judge would opine in such a case will be debated on the facts and circumstances of said case. I would urge you to read the judgement of the aforementioned case. The same analogy would hold in the case of marriage equality. When judges of the Supreme Court had opined sexual orientation based discrimination is unconstitutional in Navtej Singh Johar and covered under Article 15, that implied that it would include State discriminating based on sexual orientation in the matters of marriage amongst others would also be unconstitutional for the same reasons. That however did not automatically translate into anything and writs had to filed in the courts. So it does not make sense to presume that "family" has expanded to include all forms of live in relationships - it has no bearing until tested against the facts and definitively ruled in their favour and not to be treated as having any conflict with the case being written about here. 49.207.202.116 (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To substantiate this further, you may consider this case where a habeas corpus was filed and the court opined that the Hindu Marriage Act does not recognise same sex marriage. The Allahabad High Court need not have gone into this and would be treated as obiter and again would not be in 'conflict' with the petitions that are explicitly challenging marriage acts to be unconstitutional as this was not what was the nature of the petition in the Allahabad HC.49.207.202.116 (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

A startling amount of content on the article seems to be based on court affidavits. These are primary sources. Please use secondary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have further concerns on the verbosity of the Written Arguments section on this post. These are too detailed, long and as indicated above, directly borrowed from the court affidavits. It would help to have shorter summaries on the Wikipedia article instead of reproducing a lot of content. 49.207.222.128 (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed to be directly borrowed from the affidavit. A "written argument" section in a Legal Case Study is where you present the arguments made by the petitioners, respondents and intervenors. You don't add your own views or interpretation of their argument. The same goes for the "judgement/opinion/verdict" section of the Case Study. Any secondary views can be added to the "Commentary" and "Reactions" sections.
To address your verbosity concern, the affidavits very incredible long. If you compare any of the content in the wikipedia page against the petitions filed. You will see it has been summarized. For example, in each petitions, Petitioners made page long arguments, which I have concluded in few lines:
"Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to equality. The Supreme Court declared that any law that fails to protect the self-determination of sexual orientation and gender identity of an individual is irrational, manifestly arbitrary, and a violation of Article 14."
In this case, the petitioners quoted, and reproduced the various cases including NLSA v. UOI (2014), Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018). But it has been summarised in few sentences. If you have any specific concerns, any thoughts on how certain sections can be further summarized. Please share them, but be specific and constructive. Wiki6995 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It indeed is quite long. But I couldn't decide on what to remove. It seems like everything is quite essential.
I don't find the list of Acts and Section presented by the Respondent/Union of India to be really informative. It can just be mentioned that Union of India presented a list of XY number of Acts, and XY number of sections that would be affected by the ruling. On other hand, I think the Centre's argument is really small compared to the Petitioners. Some of the petitions are 100s of pages. So, I assumed the writer intended to include mundane details in Union of India's argument so they would be comparable in size. 2861969nyc (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its normal for legal case pages to have primary sources. Especially because, we are presenting the claims made by each side.
In Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, under the section of "Primary" does not mean "bad" you will find the following statements: Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
Given the content type of the "written arguments", it makes more sense to rely on the primary source than secondary sources. In Roe v. Wade, and Obergfell v. Hodges which are high quality legal articles in Wikipedia, they even rely on internal memos between the judges. Because once again, primary sources are avoided on the question of credibility. When it comes to court of law, it doesn't have that same problem. Which is why articles on legal cases such as Roe v. Wade, and Obergfell v. Hodges rank highly despite relying on primary sources. Wiki6995 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have to note that these aren't presented as facts, rather, they are presented as arguments made by each side in the Court of Law. The reason Wikipedia policy advice against is lack of neutrality in Primary Sources. But when you are literally presenting the argument made by a side in the Court of law. The point of neutrality doesn't serve its purpose. You also have to read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources along with Wikipedia:No original research Wiki6995 (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Context of the use + Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources + Wikipedia:No original research should be taken into account while considering the use of Primary Sources. 2861969nyc (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention Application[edit]

Hey @49.207.202.116, you have added a statement that there is 10 intervention applications, some against, and some in favour. Do you know who have filed these applications, on whose behalf and which ones are against and for? Because these haven't been reported yet.

The information on the filing of the IAs is available on the website of the Supreme Court of India under the case status of the lead petition. However the exact intervenors other than those that were reported by the press are only available in court records. The number being 10 is verifiable directly from public record. 49.207.222.128 (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the Article[edit]

I think @49.207.202.116 has a valid point on the length of the Article. @Wiki6995 I have removed the list of Acts and Sections that Respondents presented in their arguments, has legislation that would affected by the ruling. I think it is non-essential details. If You would like to include the number of acts and sections, They are : 10 Acts and 40 sections. But I feel that is unnecessary, as the respondents didn't say it was a comprehensive list of laws that would affected, rather it was just an example.2861969nyc (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Written Argument section has headings and it would be easier for the readers to skip and read the part they are interested in. So, I don't see any reason to exclude some of them. But if you, @49.207.202.116, find something similar to the list of presented by the respondents, which isn't essential to present the argument. We can remove that.
Other than that, it is better to see the judgement, and if the judges completely ignored a certain line of arguments. That is, they don't mention that line of argument to support or refute it in their opinions. Then we can remove that line of argument for lacking notability.
I am not entirely sure about that idea as well. I read an article on same-sex marriage cases across the world, and how in most countries, judges ignore the international treaty obligation claims. Apparently, in some countries, judges mentioned it in their opinion, and their deliberation even showed their agreement. But they ignored it while delivering the verdict/conclusion. And so far, no country has relied on international treaty obligations to grant same-sex marriage. Even if Indian Judges ignore the international treaty obligation claims, it is still noteworthy. I think it shows that judges are unwilling to open that pandora box.
No matter what,considering that India has potential to double the population with access to marriage equality, India is largest democracy and, Socially Conservative Society, this case is not some low-importance case as it is ranked. It would as notable in global LGBT history as Netherland legalising the same-sex marriage (being first to do so) and US Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. 2861969nyc (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not onto whether the content should be retained or not; but rather about the form or presentation of the content. For instance tabulation of written arguments could potentially be one way. My concern is that the sections or readability of this article is currently very low beyond the first few sections, and I am wondering if that can be improved. 49.207.222.128 (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting suggestion. I thought about the table too. Considering the volume of the petition and their arguments. But decided against it after seeing the wikipedia page for various cases and case reports published in other places. I assume its because the relationship between the points made by two parties wouldn't be simple. Also, we would be assuming the which argument is against which one. As the Court filing doesn't explicitly state them.
Unless you meant a separate table for petitioners and respondents. I can't see what purpose that would serve. If you have any idea, please do share. It's also very possible to trim down the content. I didn't arrive at this at first:
"Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to equality. The Supreme Court declared that any law that fails to protect the self-determination of sexual orientation and gender identity of an individual is irrational, manifestly arbitrary, and a violation of Article 14."
When I initially wrote it, it was 2-3 times longer. Then I moved the mentioning of the NLSA v. UOI (2014), Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018) to the top. So, it was repeated everytime under each article. Also, took out the analysis of the three cases petitioners presented for each article. Wiki6995 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Argument[edit]

Hey @RayneVanDunem,

You added the "alternative to marriage" heading, and that is incorrect. The media widely reported that the Committee was an alternative to the Marriage. However, that's not true. The petitioner's lawyers raised the concern immediately, and the Bench immediately clarified the Committee is only for the ancillary rights available to opposite-sex married couples. The Bench would still consider the issue of right to marry for queer couples (Source: Oral Arguments: Day 7).

Please be careful when you add oral arguments. This blog-post explains that frequently media reports the oral arguments incorrectly. In short, oral remarks is not same as a Court Order/Final Verdict. I recommend SCO Observer, as they value accuracy over the speed of reporting. In this page, at the bottom, under the section "Reports", they add daily reports. 2861969nyc (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RayneVanDunem. Especially because the Indian Court has the practice where the judges take turns agreeing with the petitioners’ and defendants’ premises, and explore their arguments further. Initially, it seemed like the Bench was favoring the petitioners, and now it seems the opposite. But, that's part of the hearing process. Be careful of the Sources you rely on. 2861969nyc (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @RayneVanDunem, Justice Bhat didn't make any comments when the court reserved judgement. The oral remark reported by the news paper was from earlier arguments. Specifically, he made the remark, before Petitioner's rebuttal to opponent's claim, that writ or direction is beyond the scope of the Court. In fact, it would have been unethical to hint the verdict. Justice would have to read the written submissions, deliberate, and arrive at consensus before delivering verdict.
The Indian News Outlets are terrible at reporting the Court proceedings. As this blog post explains. 2861969nyc (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supriyo_v._Union_of_India&oldid=1185197645"