Saturday, June 15, 2024

Supreme Court Faces Heated Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage Legality

Must Read

The Supreme Court of India is currently facing a heated debate on the legality of same-sex marriage in the country. The debate began with the government stating that it was reconsidering whether or not to participate in the proceedings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the Central government, requested that the government be heard first on the maintainability of the pleas. However, the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, denied the request. He emphasised that the bench would hear the petitioners first to understand the broad issues presented.
Central government opposes same-sex marriage plea in Supreme Court; says Indian family concept involves biological man and woman
PC Bar And Bench

Maintainability Of Petitions

Mehta argued that the issue raised by the Central government, regarding the maintainability of the petitions, should be heard first. It falls within the domain of parliament. He raised the question of whether the courts could enter this area or if only parliament could do so. However, the Chief Justice insisted on hearing the petitioners first to understand the merits of the case.

Following this, Mehta stated that the government would consider whether or not it wished to participate in the case. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul pointed out that it was an important issue and that it did not look good for the government to say that it would decide whether to participate or not.

- Advertisement -

The Court proceeded to hear the petitioners, and eventually, Mehta began his arguments. He reiterated his request to hear the matter first on maintainability. The Chief Justice replied that they would reflect on it over lunch and decide.

Same Sex Family Life And Adoption

The hearing is still in progress, and the Court is hearing a batch of petitions seeking the recognition of same-sex marriages under the law. However, the Central government has opposed the petitions, arguing that living together as partners and having a sexual relationship by same-sex individuals is not comparable to the Indian family unit concept.

Various religious and child protection bodies have also weighed in on the debate. The Central government has filed an application asking the Court to first decide on the maintainability of the petitions.

- Advertisement -

The Islamic religious body Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights have also opposed same-sex marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples. However, the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights has supported the case of the petitioners, arguing that adoption and succession rights must be given to same-sex couples.

Post Lunch Debate

The debate continued on equality demands like the heterosexuals in the society. Adv Rohatgi demanded the freedom and equal recognition granted to the different sex couples. The way of life inside the house should not affect their perception outside is the argument by Rohatgi. He added that Article 377 is a way of living that 10,000 homosexuals have against the majority of 10 crore individuals.

- Advertisement -

Other Examples To Defend

Rohatgi argues that diversity, plurality, and secularism are essential parts of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, citing a series of court decisions. He emphasises that these concepts require the people forming the nation to work together, as demonstrated by the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). It recognised the preamble as an intrinsic component of the constitution. Rohatgi also points out that Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 stem from the preamble. The Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity principles promote the dignity of the Indian people. He maintains that unity and integrity are more important than individuals. Furthermore, Rohatgi highlights that several Supreme Court decisions, such as Bommai (1994), IR Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007). The TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, have established secularism as part of the basic structure.

Rohatgi asserts that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation deeply offends an individual’s dignity and self-worth. A constitutional declaration is necessary to eliminate the stigma. He points out that relying on popular acceptance alone is insufficient to deny any community’s fundamental rights.

Gender Fluidity?

The MiLords are going to make India a cheap copy of the USA.

“There is no absolute notion of a man or a woman; It goes beyond the genitals” as spoken by the CJI.

This suggests that individuals can change genders based on their mood at different times of the day – morning, afternoon, evening, and nighttime. However, it raises a question: how will this apply across all religions? Not every religion adheres to secularism like Hindus are compelled to do. Hindus may be criticised for any problems that arise. Have the MiLords considered this? Apparently not, but since they have the power to make decisions that become law, implementation is expected soon.

Also if this is fluidity is acceptable, how about fluidity of religion, caste and so on? Where will this stop? Blind copying of the Western nonsense will not yield in any progress but force the nation backwards!

- Advertisement -

More articles


Comments are closed.

- Advertisement -

Latest Article