Over the course of the past two weeks, the Supreme Court has been hearing a batch of petitions by 18 LGBTQ couples seeking the legalisation of same-sex marriages in India. The apex court has made various observations on gender, relationships, family, the stigma and more surrounding the LGBTQIA+ community.
The lead petitioners, Supriya Chakraborty and Abhay Dange, have argued that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage causes discrimination and denies the couples as citizens of the country. However, the Centre has been firm on its stance vehemently opposing marriage equality, invoking the 바카라accepted view바카라 of marriage between a biological man and biological woman, even as the five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud countered the notion saying there was no 바카라absolute바카라 concept of gender.
Nearly five years after homosexuality was decriminalised, the pleas are being heard in reference to the Special Marriages Act of 1954, which allows couples to register marriage if they cannot marry under personal laws. The hearing will resume again on May 3.
Here are the key takeaways from the same-sex marriage hearing so far:
The 바카라urban elitist바카라 debate
The Centre, in its submissions before the top court, questioned the maintainability of the petitions and said that the same-sex marriage petitions represent "urban elite" views. It said that the legislature will have to take into account the 바카라broader views and voice of all rural, semi-rural and urban population, views of religious denominations keeping in mind personal laws as well as and customs governing the field of marriage together with its inevitable cascading effects on several other statutes".
The Supreme Court rejected the Centre바카라s view saying it did not have any data to prove the same. Just because more people from cities are coming out of the closet, the top court said, does not make it an 바카라urban elitist바카라 concept.
Biological gender is not 바카라absolute바카라
Senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, said same-sex marriage was a narrow term and if the Supreme Court were to grant marriage equality to gay couples, it should be for consenting adults across "bodily gender and sex spectrum".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, countered Singhvi saying the 바카라biological gender was the gender of a person바카라 but he was immediately intervened by the CJI who said there is no 바카라absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman바카라.
The Supreme Court observed that gender is 바카라far more complex바카라 than one바카라s genitals. 바카라So, even when the Special Marriage Act says man and woman, the very notion of a man and a woman is not an absolute based on genitals,바카라 CJI Chandrachud said.
바카라Bouquet of rights바카라 being denied
Another major point made by the petitioners was that by denying marriage, the LGBTQIA+ community was also being denied the bouquet of rights that came with it. These rights include legal benefits such as tax benefits, medical rights, inheritance, adoption, among others.
Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, taking a stand for the queer petitioners, said that marriage is 바카라not only a question of dignity but a bouquet of rights that LGBTQ people are being denied바카라.
The Centre has said the court cannot give additional rights to non-heterosexual marriages under the Special Marriage Act that because the 바카라legislative intent바카라 of marriage in India has always been about the 바카라relationship between a biological man and a biological female바카라.
Gendered terms
The Centre, in its arguments against marriage equality, raised concerns about specifying 바카라mother바카라 and 바카라father바카라, 바카라husband바카라 and 바카라wife바카라 in a same-sex marriage. The apex court, in response, observed that it was time to update the laws on gendered terms.
Prior to that, senior advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for the petitioners, had said that the right to family must be recognised under the right to life that falls under Article 21, which includes the right to marry. Kothari had said the right to marry must be granted to same-sex couples and added that the Special Marriage Act can be read to mean husband and wife as spouse and man and woman as persons.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that if both parties in a marriage are referred to as 바카라persons바카라, a number of administrative problems will arise. Unlike heterosexual marriage, he asked, if a person died, who would be called the widow or widower? He also raised the issue of mother and father and argued that it will become a problem in passports and other documentation. 바카라For domicile, it cannot be decided who will be the woman. For passports etc, this issue will arise. Succession act provides for the widow, widower, husband, wife, father, mother etc,바카라 he told the court.
Who should decide on the right to same-sex marriage?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, asked the Supreme Court to 바카라let the Parliament decide바카라 on granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. Mehta said that the court was dealing with a very complex subject that has a profound social impact that needs to be decided by the people.
SG Mehta바카라s statements were reiterated by home minister Amit Shah and law minister Kiren Rijiju as well, on separate occasions.
Meanwhile, the Bar Council of India passed a resolution opposing the grant of legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The resolution emphasized India as a diverse country with a mosaic of beliefs, and any matter that is likely to tinker with the fundamental social structure should necessarily come through the legislative process.
The resolution has been criticised by many, including by Queer and allied student groups from 36 law schools in India who described it as 바카라ignorant and harmful바카라.
