सुप्रीम कोर्ट में सेम-सेक्स मैरिज की सुनवाई टली: दो जजों ने खुद को बेंच से अलग किया, अगली सुनवाई की तारीख अभी तय नहीं

Two judges have recused themselves from hearing a petition seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage, postponing a hearing scheduled for Monday.

The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing of the petition demanding legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the country. Two judges out of the 5-judge bench have recused themselves from the matter, so the hearing of the petition will not continue on Monday. No date has yet been fixed for the next hearing.

Thursday was the third day of hearing of the case. The court had asked all the petitioners to place their submissions in the court by Monday (April 24), so that the Center and other accountable parties could present their stand in the next week. The hearing on Thursday did not reach any conclusion.

On the demand of 20 petitions, a hearing was held in the Supreme Court for the third consecutive day on Thursday. In the midst of the arguments given by the petitioners for about 4 hours, the Supreme Court had asked whether it is necessary to have two different gender partners for marriage?

The Centre’s stand on same sex marriage was presented by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta. The petitions in favor of same sex marriage were argued by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi.

The case was heard by a five-judge constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli.

CJI had said – finish the arguments by Monday in any case
Concluding the hearing on the third day, CJI Chandrachud named 13 lawyers for further arguments. Also said that the arguments on behalf of the petitioners should end on Monday. For this, the lawyers should discuss among themselves and distribute the time.

In Thursday’s hearing, the arguments of the three senior advocates of the petitioners can be read here…

1. Abhishek Manu Singhvi termed the rule of Special Marriage Act wrong

With whom to live, it is our decision only: Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, “It will be my (petitioners’) decision only. It will be my heart’s decision. With whom and for how long, it is my right. Why should I tell the world a month in advance that we Going to get married? This provision of the Special Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as you are infringing on my privacy before the marriage formalities. You are asking me to invite protest by expressing my intentions.”

In common marriages who tells the world that they are going to get married: He said, “Which couple in common marriages tells the world that they are going to get married before marriage? Leave common marriages, such a rule does not even apply in personal law like Parsi Act. Then for us people Why so? It is my decision and only mine.”

Gender determination based on the person’s stated identity: During the debate on the minimum age of same sex marriage, Singhvi said, “The simple way is that the rule of minimum age should be implemented only on those same sex couples who want to get married. There is a need to rip up the law.” No. Another question may arise regarding the trans category, so my answer to this would be that in 99% of the cases gender should be determined on the basis of what the person has told.

2. Raju Ramachandran mentions same sex couple, responds to Center

Urban elite class thinking statement is not sensitive: The Center had argued on April 18 that the demand for recognition of same sex marriage is the thinking of the elite class of the cities. On this, the petitioner’s lawyer Raju Ramachandran said- In 1956, Justice Vivian Bose had given a historic judgment and said that the constitution is for the common man, for the poor, for the businessman, for the butcher, for the bread maker. For and for the candle maker.

For the people for whom I am present in the court today, I find it important to mention it here today. One of the petitioners is Kajal, a Dalit woman. Belongs to a city in Punjab. The second petitioner Bhavna is a resident of Bahadurgarh, Haryana and is an OBC. Bhavna is an accountant in Chandigarh and Kajal is an assistant in a bakery. She is such a bakery lady, whom Justice Vivian Bose had kept in mind while delivering the verdict.

Marriage also gives protection to the couple from their near and dear ones: The government had said in its affidavit that the thinking of legality of same sex marriage is of the urban elite class. The presence of these petitioners belies this notion. This statement is irresponsible, unnecessary and insensitive. The institution of marriage is not only a way to many socio-economic rights, but it also provides protection to two people from their relatives and families.

Couple’s parents were not sensible, had to go to Delhi High Court for protection: Raju Ramachandran said, “Parents of such same sex couples are often not that understanding. Families are not understanding of these couples. This couple had to go to the Delhi High Court to seek protection. Recognition of their marriage is important for their safety.” necessary for.”

3. Viswanathan said – Those who do not give birth to children are not allowed to marry?

It is wrong to see marriage from the point of view of progeny growth: Senior advocate KV Vishwanathan, appearing for another petitioner, said, “It is totally wrong to look at marriage from the point of view of progeny. Those people say that you cannot do progeny. Is this the reason behind not giving the status of marriage?” Could there be a valid reason? Do old people not marry? Are those who cannot have children not allowed to marry?”

We can be brother-sister, son-daughter, not married life partner: There is another loophole in the Centre’s statement. He says everything is fine. You are almost equal to us, but you are different. If we can be sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, then what is stopping us from achieving the status of married spouses? The answer is sexual desire, which we have no control over.”

Supreme Court’s comment – the concepts of marriage will have to be redefined

On legalizing same sex marriage, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, “From the time we decriminalized homosexuality, it became clear that it is not a one-time relationship. Not only did we recognize such relationships by removing them from the category, but we also told that same-sex couples can also live in stable relationships.

Now we have to redefine the changing perceptions about marriage. Because the question is, is it necessary for marriage to have two partners who belong to different genders? Here the law has been able to recognize that there can be two different genders for marriage, but this is not necessary for the definition of marriage.

Now read the news related to the hearing of the first 2 days…

Hearing of the second day – the petitioner said – the status of marriage gives financial support and security

Hearing on 20 petitions seeking legal recognition of same sex marriage ended in the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the second day. On Thursday, the hearing will begin with the arguments of Advocate Singhvi. During the hearing, the CJI said that the government does not have this data, which proves that same sex marriage is an elite class concept. Read full news…

First day’s hearing – The government said – there should be no hearing on the matter; CJI said – exercise for the next generations

Opposing the recognition of same sex, the central government said that we are getting entangled in this matter. We are saying that the matter should not be heard at all. This is a very sensitive issue. On this, the court said that the exercise of hearing is being done for generations to come. The court and Parliament will decide on this later. Read full news…