Same-sex marriage: CJI faces backlash for ‘notion of man, woman’ remark

The five-judge bench on Tuesday affirmed that the issue of same-sex marriage is complex and CJI Chandrachud noted that the “notion of a man and a woman is not an absolute based on genitals.”

“It is not the question of what your genitals are. It is far more complex, that’s the point. So, 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,” CJI Chandrachud said. The bench comprised Justices SK Kaul, SR Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha.

After the observations, the Chief Justice of India is facing a backlash on Twitter with social media users brutally targeting him for his observations.

Here’s how Twitter users are targeting CJI DY Chandrachud:

“Honorable #cjidychandrachud Since there is no absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman at all, can a male body imbued by female psychological instincts travel in Ladies Compartment without fear or punishment??,” one user said.

“As if world is short of problems, so now #cjidychandrachud like are creating new. What does he have to say about, Gender based reservation? Gender based rituals? etc…Also, wasn’t it #SupremeCourtofIndia that talked about having more WOMEN in supreme court?.”

#Science died a thousand deaths today. Uselessly tried to define the sex based on genitals for so many years…But here we are! It means there is no exact definition of a male and a female! #SupremeCourt ne kaha hai to thik hi hoga, #cjidychandrachud #RIPScience,” another user said.

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court started hearing the case of same-sex marriage on Tuesday after the apex court referred at least 15 petitions on the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative decision last month by a CJI-led bench, who called it a “very seminal issue”.

On Wednesday, Centre filed a fresh affidavit in Supreme Court and asked for the opinions of state and union territories on the matter. This came as the Centre has expressed its opposition to the idea of granting legal status to same-sex marriage and called the petitions as reflecting “urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance”.