While the government continued its arguments against the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court asked the state government to let transgender people change their name and gender in educational institution records.
Here's a glimpse of everything that happened in our courts on Thursday, 27 April:
Delhi HC's Order On Student Screening BBC Documentary
The Delhi High Court set aside a Delhi University order barring student leader Lokesh Chugh from the university over a screening of the BBC documentary on PM Modi's alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The university had barred Chugh, who is the national secretary of the National Students' Union of India (NSUI), from taking exams for a year, after he allegedly organised a protest, where the controversial documentary was screened.
DU told the court earlier this week, that the documentary screening was done without permission and organising protests despite prohibitory orders was "gross indiscipline."
However, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside the order and restored Chugh's admission.
"The court is unable to sustain the impugned order dated March 10, 2023. Impugned order is set aside. The admission of the petitioner is restored. Necessary consequences will follow," the Court ordered according to Bar and Bench.
Centre Says 'Won't Notify Fact-Check Unit Till 5 July...'
The Centre told the Bombay High Court that it will not notify till 5 July the formation of the government-notified 'fact-check unit' under the new Information Technology Rules.
This fact-checking unit, once constituted, will have the power to flag any content about any government business as 'fake', 'false' or 'misleading' and let intermediaries take action against it.
The government made the statement about not notifying it till 5 July in response to a plea by stand up comic Kunal Kamra who recently filed a petition challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 that were notified by the government earlier this month.
Marriage Equality: CJI Tells Govt That It Has An Obligation...
The five-judge Supreme Court bench continued hearing the marriage equality petitions on Thursday, 27 April, during which Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that the state has an obligation to legally recognise the social impact of cohabitation of a same-sex couple "if it recognises the 'right to cohabit' as a fundamental right."
The CJI was responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued:
"The right to love, to cohabit, to project one's sexual orientation, and to choose one's partner is a fundamental right, but it is not a fundamental right to seek legal recognition of that relationship as a marriage or in any other name."
In other words, SG Mehta contended that while same-sex couples could have the right to cohabit and sanctify their relationship, the state has no obligation to recognise it statutorily.
Bombay HC's Big Order For Transgender Folks
The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Government to ask educational institutions across the state to allow transgender people to change their name and gender retrospectively in their records.
"This is a case of a denial of a human being’s self-identity and self-identification. That cannot be done and cannot be permitted. Nor can an institute be permitted to force upon the Petitioner a name, identity or a gender that the Petitioner has chosen to reject in preference to some other," the bench said.
RSS Ideologue Refuses To Apologise Twice For Tweet Against Justice Muralidhar
RSS ideologue S Gurumurthy informed the Delhi High Court that he will not file a second affidavit with an apology for his tweet against former Delhi High Court judge and current Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Justice S Muralidhar.
In his tweet, Gurumurthy had asked if Justice Muralidhar was a junior to former union minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram.
He said this after a bench led by Justice Muralidhar stopped the Enforcement Directorate from taking any coercive action against P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram.
Justice Muralidhar had clarified that he had never worked as a junior to Chidambaram.