Read Time: 08 minutes

The Delhi High Court has posted for final hearing on November 30 pleas seeking recognition to same-sex marriages in India under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriages Act and the Foreign Marriage Act. On the date the court will also hear a connected plea seeking Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status for a same-sex spouse in a marriage registered in Canada. 

Appearing in the latter case today, Adv. Karuna Nundy for the petitioner, stated that no counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India till date even though on the previous date of hearing Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Kirtiman Singh had accepted notice on the plea and sought time to file a reply. 

Appearing for the Union of India today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed court that the plea revolves purely around a question of law and pleadings are complete from their end, they are ready to argue the matter.

He added that the Navtej Singh Johar judgment which had been relied upon by the petitioners merely decriminalizes same-sex marriages in India and does not provide for any recognition or right of registration to same-sex marriage partners.

He said, "The law is clear, marriage implies a relationship between a biological man and a biological woman."

Replying, Nundy argued that, "Section  7A(1)(d)  of  the  Citizenship  Act,  1955  entitles  a  spouse  of foreign  origin  of  an  OCI  Cardholder,  whose  marriage  has  been registered  and  subsisting  for  at  least  two  years  to  apply  for  OCI  status."

The section is silent on the gender of the spouse she pointed out, and therefore the petitioner is seeking OCI status.

Blaine Stephens being  the spouse  of  an  OCI  cardholder,  i.e, Joydeep Sengupta,  was keen  to  apply for OCI status through  this  procedure, as they are expecting their first child together and are desirous of visiting the grandparents of the child who reside in India.

The petitioners had submitted in support of their prayer 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 had also contented that the right  to  marry  a  person  of  one’s choice  as  an  essential  component of  the  right  to  autonomy,  privacy  within  Article  21  has  been  recognized by  a  catena  of  judgments  in  India  as  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 pointed out 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.

The court was also hearing pleas seeking recognition to same-sex marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act, upon which the government has replied earlier stating that such recognition would result in “a complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country”.

“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,” the Centre had stated in its reply earlier in the same-sex marriage plea.

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