National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits.[1] It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs | |
---|---|
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others |
Decided | 2 December 1999 |
Citation(s) | [1999] ZACC 17, 2000 (1) BCLR 39 (CC), 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC) |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Cape Provincial Division |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs & Yacoob JJ, Cameron AJ |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Justice Ackermann |
Keywords | |
LGBT rights, immigration equality |
In the area of constitutional litigation, the court considered its powers where it has declared a law or provision to be inconsistent with the Constitution. It found that, where the constitutional invalidity resulted from an omission in the legislation, it was not possible to cure the defect by way of notional severance. The only logical equivalent of severance, the court determined, is "reading in," which can be an appropriate form of relief under section 38 of the Constitution. Whether the court reads in or strikes out words from a challenged law, the focus should be on the appropriate remedy, not on the label used to arrive at the result.