The Supreme Court was hearing the batch of pleas wherein seeking legal sanction to same-sex marriages, the plea filed stated that only the Parliament can decide on the creation of a new social relationship.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of the Centre stated that those which are present in the proceedings did not represent the views of the nation and firstly the court needs to examine that if it can at all hear the said matter.
In the present case, the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing the matter and stated that the request being termed as ‘mere urban elitist views’ by the Centre.
It has also been stated by him that the Parliament is the only constitutionally permissible forum in order to decide on the creation of a new social relationship, asserted the top law officer. Thus, ‘We are still questioning whether it is for the courts to decide on its own’.
The bench of CJI stated that the court cannot be told how to make a decision and that it wants to hear the side of the petitioner. Further, the CJI DY Chandrachud stated that the arguments must steer clear of personal marriage laws and it should focus only on the Special Marriage Act. Thus, the said court will continue hearing the petitioners’ arguments till Thursday.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued before the court while seeking legal sanctions to same-sex marriages that the right to same-sex marriage should be allowed in view of the earlier orders and the judgment decriminalising homosexuality.
Adding to it, Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi stated that we seek declaration that we have a right to get married. Thus, the said right will be recognized only by the state as per the provisions stated under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the said marriage will be recognized by the state after the declaration of this court. Therefore, it is because even now we are stigmatized – even if we hold hands and walk. The same being after the Article 377 judgement.
The bench headed by CJI remarked that there being no absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman at all, the remarks came after it has been submitted by Mr Mehta that the intent of the Special Marriage Act has been for the relationship between a ‘biological male and biological female’. The same being not a question of what your genitals are.
It has also been submitted before the court by Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, arguing for the petitioners stated that it being a question of an individual’s rights. Thus, marriage being a question of rights and I not able to notify my partner for life insurance as I cannot buy insurance from the Supreme Court Bar Association for my family.
Further, the Centre in the case stated that the order of the court of recognising same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. Thus, the said court must refrain from passing such omnibus orders.
