NewDelhi: The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on a batch of petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages, an issue with far-reaching societal implications and sharply divided opinion. A five-judge Constitution bench consisting of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha is hearing the case. On March 13, the Supreme Court referred the petitions to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication, calling it a “very seminal issue.”
SC Hearing On Same-Sex Marriage Live:
Sr Adv Singhvi: Adoption, in my opinion, is critical. So, even if the court rules that same-sex marriage is legal, such a right is a hollow shell. One is heterosexual marriage, and the other is homosexual marriage… so one criterion is based on sex… and if the court rules that same sex marriage is valid… that does not mean that people of all shades are included… the correct position will be to allow marriage between two consenting adults.
Sr Adv Singhvi: 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.. marriage has to have some consequential benefits.. even in this limited canvas the bench must travel a little further.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi Starts Arguments
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Nothing has to be struck down, and we are in the process of evolution… and the word husband and wife be read as spouse in the special marriage act.. concept of marriage has changed in the last 100 years.. there was group marriage, child marriage, temporary marriage… all of this has changed… new avatar of hindu marriage act was also rejected.
CJI Chandrachud: Assuming you want a declaration that gay people have the right to marry, what comes next? Do you want the special marriage act to include it?
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: We cherish and desire the same institution as marriage because it is respected in society. We seek a declaration that we have a right to marry.. that right will be recognised by the state as under special marriage act and the marriage will be recognised by the state after declaration of this court.. because even now we are stigmatised and even if we are holding hands and walking.. even after 377 judgement.
Rohatgi: We are persons of the same sex and we have the same rights as heterosexual groups in society. This has been held so, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. The only stumbling block was Section 377, which made our actions criminal, and it is now gone… the unnatural part is erased from the statute book, and our rights are equal, as reflected in Puttuswamy, navtej johar etc.. and if our rights are identical and then we should enjoy full array of rights as under Articles 14, 15 and 21.
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi starts arguments on behalf of the petitioners
Justice Kaul: It does not look good that the government says it will see if they will participate in the hearing or not; this is a critical issue.
CJI: Aside from the adjournment, we will consider any request.
SG Mehta: None of us know what a farmer in south India or a businessman in north India thinks.
Justice Kaul: Are you saying that the government will not attend the hearing?
SG Mehta: If that is the case, let us take some time to determine whether the government should participate in this hearing.
CJI: I am in command. I’ll make the decision… we’ll start with the petitioners. Nobody will be able to tell me how the proceedings in this court will go.
Let them (petitioners) respond to our preliminary submissions, says SG Mehta.
CJI: Let us first hear the facts of the case.
SG Mehta: My submissions are only to determine which forum should be the sole constitutional forum capable of adjudicating this issue. We will not address the merits of the case while raising this preliminary issue.
“Personal laws, adoptions, inheritance, and maintenance are all issues,” says Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.
Justice SK Kaul: Not that we aren’t aware. You are correct… but let us look at the canvas to see what is and is not opening up.
CJI DY Chandrachud: The tenability of your submission will be determined by the petitioners’ submissions. We must examine the merits of the arguments. It will not be forgotten, and we will hear you at a later stage. We need a picture in the first 15 to 20 minutes. Let us first hear from the petitioners. We cannot anticipate petitioners’ submissions.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal says states should be heard in the case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informs the Supreme Court that the Centre has filed a petition raising a preliminary objection to the plea’s maintainability.
He says the debate which is to happen is about the creation or conferring of the socio-legal institution and whether it should be done by the forum of the court or parliament.
CJI DY Chandrachud says we will hear the Centre’s submission on that at a subsequent stage.
Leave a Reply