Bro/sis, sorry to break your bubble but all the names you mentioned had argued for just about an hour in total. Heavy lifting was done by numerous other seniors. If you want, you can check the YouTube videos of hearing on SC YouTube channel.
What's with the hate these women get? Don't see salve or abs getting the same for arguing for 5 mins? They get to keep all the credit, like all lead seniors, because they are eventually handling the case and get paid?
Totally agree with you. Just pure jealousy by insecure men with inferior credentials, because:
- They are women
- They have superior educational qualifications: NLSIU, Oxford and Columbia in the case if Menaka and Arundhati, Stephen's and Columbia in the case of Karuna. More than anything, NLSIU just triggers those people from lower ranked colleges. Note also the sarcastic comments against Sudhir, Lawrence Liang, NIRF rankings, Rhodes scholarships etc.
- They were all named in the TIME 100 list, alongside some of the most famous people in the world (Menaka and Arundhati for leading the 377 case, Karuna for leading the marital rape cas)
- They are beautiful, but also brainy and articulate (a combination men are uncomfortable with)
While the mentioned criteria are important and may highlight specific skills or attributes, it's essential to note that none of them necessarily guarantees that a lawyer excels in the practice of law. Effectiveness as a lawyer encompasses a wide range of qualities, experiences, and client-focused skills that go beyond the alma mater or recognition by magazines etc.
Yes I imagine that harish salve would be applauded a lot for even deciding to take on this case. It's the brazen misogyny that has and does prevent women from entering the Supreme Court litigation. And then men ask why the best lawyers are men? Because you discredit any amount of achievement a women works for in the court ( which is really hard considering the misogyny from judges, casual sexual harassment). So your definition of "best" is incredibly myopic and patriarchal.
I still remember the hate these women got for some prizes they won, like why? They won legendary cases. Its the same hate i see with Greta Thunberg, Malala and all other such women that they didn't do much and use the women card. Its weird because women like mother Teresa and Aung Syu ki who took more traditional and "silent" roles were applauded more, while revolutionary women are seen as disrupting the world or talking nonsense. As for men, they can do anything and still take the whole credit.
Han toh? Just ask those "other seniors" who the lead senior is and who should get the credit. Ofcourse they put in the work, but ultimately seniors ko milta Haina credit? Did you say the same thing when Palkhivala or Venugopal argued for a few minutes in legendary judgements? Did you ask for the seniors under them? NO? If these guys can get the ultimate credit (known as the legend of law and former AG resp.), who not MG and AK?
NLSIU alum and ALF co-founder Arvind Narrain was interviewed on Times Now just now. He praised the judgement. But most activists are criticising it and I agree with them. I think this judgement is totally meaningless.
Clearly, some good sense has prevailed. The Supreme Court cannot legislate same sex marriage into the law. The SMA was created not to discriminate against same sex couples but to recognise inter caste and inter religious marriages. There is some disagreement about adoption. And there is some troubling language that DYC and others have used regarding "Queerness" which is a very vague open ended concept. If you mean to say Lesbian gay and bisexual- say lesbian gay and bisexual. If you mean to say trans etc- say that. It is still troubling that you can identify your way into a gender/ sex class- but in this context it doesnt bother me much.
Now just to be clear- I want same sex marriage for this country. I just want us to legislate it instead of destroying the seperation of powers and the constitution and any reasonable interpretation of that document to make something I want happen. And while we're on about making these laws just for homosexual couples- lets make these laws just for women and intercaste and inter religious couples as well. Hate vidhi all you want- they saw this coming a mile away- its about time liberals stopped being hypocritical and subservient to the islamic clerics and got behind a uniform civil code.
Liberals need to reflect on why they lost this one. Its a bad loss and it was avoidable if they didnt a) have the annoying quality of complaining to teacher everytime they lost on the play ground and instead got in there and fought and convinced their fellow citizens of the virtues of what they wanted and b) did not decide they and their supreme court judges were unquestionably morally better than the rest of the country so they didnt even need to engage in the democratic process as the rest of the country. Nearly every landmark progressive move in the country has come not from the court- which is by design a conservative institution- but from the legislature.
Fair enough, agree with what you said: however, do you realise the amount of violence on LGBTQI+ this will entrench in this country where they are already treated as sub-human? By violence I do not only mean physical violence but legal and institutional violence.
I think violence is violence. You explain what legal and institutional violence is and then I might change my mind. Fuzzy words and fuzzy concepts are what made for this mess in the first place. Stop only talking to your bubble.
One of the petitioners, RW influencer, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, has tweeted before and after the verdict as follows:
NON EXPERT SOOTHSAYING: The #LGBT verdict in the #SupremeCourt today will refuse marriage equality citing constitutional limits & kick it to parliament. The government will use that judgement for enacting the Uniform Civil Code with marriage equality.
"The delicious irony: UCC will be enacted in India, on the basis of an LGBT marriage equality verdict! So much for “intersectionality”.
Honestly, at this point, I think the gays should just maliciously comply. As far as I can tell " heterosexual" trans-gender marriages are now legally valid throughout the country. And no government institution can require medical treatment- hormones or surgery , gender is determined by self-identification. One of the partners in the gay couple should declare themselves as feeling womanly one day- get married and one of the people in a lesbian couple should just declare themselves a man. If the only way that this court understands marriage is as between two different genders- then lets play around with our genders. Its humiliating- a gay man shouldnt have to call himself a woman and a gay woman shouldnt have to call herself a man- but clearly the court cannot see how homosexual folks dont have the right to marry who they love but heterosexuals ( and some trans folks) can. I say exploit any loopholes- make these guys look like idiots.
Socially, gender is self-determined. Legally, it will get assigned to you on birth that's beyond your control. You need to actually undergo procedures to get it changed lawfully and even then it is rather difficult. So, good out of the box thinking, but sadly, not practical yet.
no this judgment- supriyo- chandrachud clearly states that no one should have to undergo any medical treatment- not surgery not hormones - to be identified as the opposite sex. Self ID is here to stay. NALSA also allowed for Self ID in part. Socially gender has always been assigned based on sex.
I sincerely ask you to put the misogynistic lens aside? Why do you hate these women so much? All Senior advocates their level "hog" screen time before the court, because it is a live telecast, it wasn't so before. It's not a made up comedy show, its admissible arguments, nobody other than people interested is watching.
Also they have definitely argued the best arguments, not just for today but previous judgments as well and have been more successful than the likes of male lawyers, who dont get this hate.
Can you look at the facts with more maturity and comment?
https://www.barandbench.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-to-pronounce-judgment-in-same-sex-marriage-case-tomorrow
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-deliver-verdict-on-legality-of-same-sex-marriage-tomorrow-101697459951685.html
- They are women
- They have superior educational qualifications: NLSIU, Oxford and Columbia in the case if Menaka and Arundhati, Stephen's and Columbia in the case of Karuna. More than anything, NLSIU just triggers those people from lower ranked colleges. Note also the sarcastic comments against Sudhir, Lawrence Liang, NIRF rankings, Rhodes scholarships etc.
- They were all named in the TIME 100 list, alongside some of the most famous people in the world (Menaka and Arundhati for leading the 377 case, Karuna for leading the marital rape cas)
- They are beautiful, but also brainy and articulate (a combination men are uncomfortable with)
I still remember the hate these women got for some prizes they won, like why? They won legendary cases. Its the same hate i see with Greta Thunberg, Malala and all other such women that they didn't do much and use the women card. Its weird because women like mother Teresa and Aung Syu ki who took more traditional and "silent" roles were applauded more, while revolutionary women are seen as disrupting the world or talking nonsense. As for men, they can do anything and still take the whole credit.
Now just to be clear- I want same sex marriage for this country. I just want us to legislate it instead of destroying the seperation of powers and the constitution and any reasonable interpretation of that document to make something I want happen. And while we're on about making these laws just for homosexual couples- lets make these laws just for women and intercaste and inter religious couples as well. Hate vidhi all you want- they saw this coming a mile away- its about time liberals stopped being hypocritical and subservient to the islamic clerics and got behind a uniform civil code.
Liberals need to reflect on why they lost this one. Its a bad loss and it was avoidable if they didnt a) have the annoying quality of complaining to teacher everytime they lost on the play ground and instead got in there and fought and convinced their fellow citizens of the virtues of what they wanted and b) did not decide they and their supreme court judges were unquestionably morally better than the rest of the country so they didnt even need to engage in the democratic process as the rest of the country. Nearly every landmark progressive move in the country has come not from the court- which is by design a conservative institution- but from the legislature.
NON EXPERT SOOTHSAYING: The #LGBT verdict in the #SupremeCourt today will refuse marriage equality citing constitutional limits & kick it to parliament. The government will use that judgement for enacting the Uniform Civil Code with marriage equality.
"The delicious irony: UCC will be enacted in India, on the basis of an LGBT marriage equality verdict! So much for “intersectionality”.
https://twitter.com/Iyervval/status/1714167923642654990
NALSA also allowed for Self ID in part. Socially gender has always been assigned based on sex.
Also they have definitely argued the best arguments, not just for today but previous judgments as well and have been more successful than the likes of male lawyers, who dont get this hate.
Can you look at the facts with more maturity and comment?
Sheroes. Legends.