‘LGBTQ community is denied basic rights’: Petitioners to SC on same-sex marriage

The central government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has voiced its opposition to same-sex marriage rights, stating that the matter should be addressed through legislation in Parliament, rather than being determined by the courts. The government has reiterated that the responsibility of deciding on issues related to human relationships, such as marriage, is primarily a function of the legislature.

Here are ten updates on the hearing in the apex court:

1. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the central government, has stated that the opinions of those present in the hearing do not necessarily reflect the views of the entire nation. He further added that the court should first evaluate whether it has the jurisdiction to hear this matter.

2. His remarks came before a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which was hearing the requests – termed as “mere urban elitist views” by the centre yesterday. The bench also comprises Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha.

3. The parliament is the only constitutionally permissible forum to decide on the creation of a new social relationship, asserted the top law officer. “We are still questioning whether it’s for courts to decide on its own,” he said.

4. Menaka Guruswamy said, “The LGBTQ community is denied basic rights. Bank accounts, life insurance, etc everything is denied. I am not able to nominate my partner for life insurance. I cannot buy SCBA insurance for my family even though I am an SCBA member…Rights are protected when you protect your relationships…The day-to-day business of life is all these things and marriage gives a couple these bouquets of rights.”

5. On this, the Chief Justice said the court can’t be told how to make a decision and that it wants to hear the petitioners’ side.

6. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who is representing the group advocating for legal recognition of same-sex marriages, has argued that the previous court rulings and the judgment that decriminalized homosexuality support the right to same-sex marriage.

7. On the Chief Justice seeking to know their demands, Rohtagi sought that the Special Marriage Act should mention ‘spouse’ instead of man and woman. The concept of marriage has changed, he argued. “We cherish and desire the same institution as marriage as it is respected in society. Now under the Domestic Violence Act, even live-in relationships are allowed,” Mr Rohatgi said.

8. Abhishek Manu Singhvi noted that on the canvas, there are two crucial words here marriage and persons. There are two categories of consequences- One is minor and major consequences of marriage.

“Adoption according to me is crucial. So if the court holds marriage of same-sex is legal but such a right is an empty shell. One is heterosexual marriage, and one is homosexual marriage. So one criterion is sex-based and if the court holds that same-sex marriage is valid, it does not mean that persons of all shades are included. The correct position will be to allow marriage between two consenting adults.”

9. “We seek a declaration that we have a right to get married. That right will be recognized by the state under the Special Marriage Act and the marriage will be recognized by the state after the declaration of this court. This is because even now we are stigmatized – even if we are holding hands and walking. This is even after Article 377 judgment,” added Rohatgi.

10. Relationships like marriages are rooted in the Indian social context, the centre said in the last hearing, pointing out that marriages are considered sacred in religious laws – and are valid “only between a biological male and biological female.”