Read Time: 05 minutes
In the petition, a legal recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, of 1954 has been sought. The absence of a legal framework that allows members of the LGBTQ+ community to marry any person of their choice had also been raised by the instant plea.
A Constitution bench of Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in the plea’s seeking legal recognition of same sex marriage, after having heard the parties over ten days.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran submitted before the bench today that lack of recognition of same-sex marriage amounted to denial of equal protection of laws.
Yesterday, the Court was told by one of the respondent that issues of social acceptability would have to be considered. The counsel had cited an example of a child telling his/her friend that he/she had two fathers/mothers and how would the former take it.
Moreover, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had placed before Supreme Court yesterday, the response received from seven states on the issue.
The Constitution Bench has been informed that while Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Sikkim has sought some time to respond, the states of Rajasthan, Assam and Andhra Pradesh has expressed their opposition to the said petition.
SG Mehta requested the CJI Chandrachud led bench to submit the response from a few states. "Rajasthan says it has read it and is opposed to the same. Others are of the view that the issue needs proper in depth analysis...", the SG told the court.
The Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha and Hima Kohli has been seized with the same-sex marriage petitions since the hearing began on April 18.
In March, the Supreme Court had ordered that the pleas seeking recognition for same-sex marriage be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench on April 18 for final disposal.
In November last year, the Supreme Court had issued a notice in the plea moved by a gay couple seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, of 1954.
The Central Government had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court opposing the demand for legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India.
Citing the ‘nature of the concept of marriage’, the affidavit stated that the notion of marriage itself necessarily and inevitably presupposes a union between two persons of the “opposite sex”.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of the petitioner-couple had submitted that the issue was a sequel to Navtej Singh Johar's judgment.
Case Title: Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborthy v. Union of India & Anr. (a batch of petitions)
Please Login or Register
