Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Central Government has objected to an application seeking live streaming of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court in a matter pertaining to the recognition of same-sex marriage in India.

The Ministry of Law and Justice in its affidavit stated that the matter may attract unwanted attraction as the arguments in the matter could be aggressive in nature.

The affidavit stated that the judges are acknowledged to be unable to effectively defend themselves in public settings and instead, their thoughts and opinions are stated through judicial pronouncements.

Furthermore, the streaming of the proceedings may be recorded, edited, and morphed to promote certain agendas and the court proceedings may lose their importance, the affidavit read.

Earlier, notice was issued in this matter which concerns a batch of petitions seeking a declaration that the right to legal recognition of a same-sex marriage or queer marriage is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 irrespective of a person’s gender, sex or sexual orientation.

In support of their prayer, it is the argument of the petitioners that consensual sexual acts between persons of the same sex have already been decriminalized by the Supreme Court in Navtez Singh Johar's case.

The petitioners have also contended that the right to marry a person of one’s choice as an essential component of the right to autonomy, and privacy within Article 21 has been recognized by a catena of judgments in India well as by foreign courts. Specifically, the right to legal recognition of same sex or non-heterosexual marriages has also been upheld as a fundamental right in a number of judgments by foreign courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States and the Constitutional Court of South Africa, they have asserted.

The petitioners have argued that even though Indian law is silent on the recognition of same sex marriages, it is a settled principle that where a marriage has been solemnized in a foreign jurisdiction, the law to be applied to such marriage or matrimonial disputes is the law of that jurisdiction. Thus, a marriage like that of petitioners being validly registered under US law, must necessarily meet the requirements of the term ‘registered’ under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, they have contended.

The Centre has already filed its reply in the matter that stated, “Living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same sex individuals is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a ‘husband’, a biological woman as a ‘wife’ and the children born out of the union between the two".

Source: ANI

Cause Title: Mr. Joydeep Sengupta & Ors vs Union of India and Ors & Abhijit Iyer Mitra vs Union of India & Ors