New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has pronounced a momentous verdict against same-sex marriage in a 3:2 decision, according to reports. This historic case, the outcome of which was closely monitored nationwide, followed a 10-day hearing before a five-judge Bench presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. Beyond the verdict, it is essential to understand the context and intricacies surrounding this landmark legal battle.
The heart of the matter lay in the debate over the fundamental right to marry and the associated rights and privileges afforded by the institution of marriage, including insurance, adoption, and inheritance. Advocates argued that these rights should be extended to LGBTQIA+ couples based on constitutional provisions such as Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-Discrimination), 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment), 19 (Freedom of Speech), and 21 (Right to Life).
Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi focused on reinterpreting the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a pivotal legislation that governs interfaith and inter-caste marriages. He proposed rewording the act to replace “man and woman” with “spouses,” thereby making it more inclusive. Furthermore, Rohatgi emphasized the need for a constitutional declaration of marriage equality, stating that such a declaration was necessary to encourage societal acceptance of same-sex marriage.
The minimum age for marriage was another pivotal point of contention. Advocates recommended different ages for marriage, based on gender identity, with lesbian couples proposed to be allowed to marry at 18, gay couples at 21, and transgender couples based on their self-identified gender.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi advocated for the removal of the 30-day notice period under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, which requires couples to announce their intention to marry publicly. Singhvi argued that this notice period invited unwarranted interference from vigilante groups, family members, and others, thus infringing on individual privacy and autonomy.
Respondents, including the Central government, raised concerns about the potential impact on numerous laws. They also contended that the Special Marriage Act had been deliberately designed to recognize only heterosexual marriages and should not be altered.
In response, they proposed the formation of a committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary, to address concerns of same-sex couples without officially recognizing their relationships as marriage.
Organizations focused on child rights argued that it was imperative to protect the interests of children born to heterosexual couples. They emphasized the difference between the concepts of “mother” and “motherhood.” However, advocates for the petitioners pointed out that over 50 countries worldwide allow same-sex couples to adopt children, surpassing the number of countries permitting same-sex marriages.
The responses from different states were mixed. Some states, including Rajasthan, Assam, and Andhra Pradesh, opposed the plea for legal recognition of same-sex marriages, while others, such as Sikkim, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Manipur, sought additional time to deliberate on the matter.
The Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, expressed concerns regarding the pursuit of a declaration validating same-sex marriages through the court, suggesting that Parliament might not act on it. They underscored that the Special Marriage Act was originally intended for heterosexual marriages and should not be misinterpreted by the court.
In summary, this significant decision against same-sex marriage highlights the intricate legal, social, and cultural aspects of the debate over marriage equality for LGBTQIA+ couples in India. While the verdict itself ruled against same-sex marriage, it emphasizes the pivotal role of legislative action in addressing this complex and highly debated issue.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
