After countering Centre’s ‘urban elitist’ remark on same-sex marriage, Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri has come up with a set of questions. The Kashmir Files director took to Twitter to ask “10 important questions on 5 judge SC bench on same-sex marriage’.
Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri’s 10 Questions on same-sex marriage hearing
Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri took to Twitter to make some “humble observations about a potential conflict of interests.
“With utmost respect for the Judges and the judiciary, not questioning their competence, merit or fairness, I have some humble observations about a potential conflict of interest,” he wrote.
His ten questions are mentioned below:
1. As per the available information on the net, all 5 judges are upper caste and privileged. There is no representation from SC/ST or other oppressed class.
2. All of them are UC Hindus. No representation from Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs, Parsi etc.
3. No representation from marginalised & discriminated LGBTQ++ category. Is it possible for UC, privileged Hindu only bench to change constitution and destiny of a nation without any representation from marginalised communities.
4. If the CJI observed that sex is not absolute and one can identify as either man or woman, shouldn’t it be mandatory for all the esteemed judges to declare whom do they identify as. For I don’t know if the arguments/observations/judgements are made by a man or a woman.
5. I am sure all esteemed judges are academically and professionally super-qualified but in a diverse country like ours, are these UC, privileged Hindus, whose gender identification is unknown, are they culturally, psychologically, civilisationally, and spiritually equipped to reengineer world’s oldest society?
6. I understand that even The Counsels arguing in the case are mostly UC privileged Hindus. None of them have identified their gender.
7. Sex is biology, hence science. Is CJIs observation based on any authorised scientific panel? Shouldn’t the CJI reveal the source of his information for the citizen.
8.Are the observations about the absoluteness of sex/gender, ABSOLUTE? Or they are also fluid?
9. Should the sexual future of India be decided by science or opinions of UC, privileged, isolated from ground reality, judges?
10. SC’s sole purpose is to protect democracy. Instead of deciding themselves, shouldn’t they have asked the parliament to take this decision which has representations of all kinds and is the will of the people, for the people and by the people? Wouldn’t have that been the true role of the protector of the democracy instead of 5 UC, privileged esteemed judges?
I hope the answer to all above is positive and satisfactory. Until then democratic questions must be asked about ‘conflict of interest’ and lack of transparency.
Pl share your views. Our team will collate replies and send them to CJI for their perusal.
Disclaimer: I personally believe in merit and not in castes. But as long as our judiciary and constitution allows elections, jobs and decision making based on caste structure, I am constitutionally forced to obey it. Hence, I have mentioned the castes of esteemed judges. I must reiterate that I have deep respect for the SC, Judiciary and esteemed judges and this post is in no way to demean their authority or respect.
Vivek Agnihotri says same-sex marriage not an ‘urban elitist’ concept
The central government has opposed gay marriage rights and called it an urban elitist concept. Opposing Centre’s remark, Vivke Ranjan Agnihotri wrote, “NO. Same-sex marriage is not an ‘urban elitist’ concept. It’s a human need. Maybe some sarkari elites drafted it who have never travelled in small towns & villages. Or Mumbai locals. First, same sex marriage is not a concept. It’s a need. It’s a right. And in a progressive, liberal & inclusive civilisation like Bharat, same sex marriage should be normal, not a crime”.
Keep watching our YouTube Channel ‘DNP INDIA’. Also, please subscribe and follow us on FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and TWITTER.
