- Hindi News
- National
- the case for same-sex marriage; Supreme Court Hearing Latest Updates | CJI DY Chandrachud
New Delhi2 hours ago
- copy link
The fifth day of hearing has been completed in the Supreme Court on 20 petitions seeking recognition of same sex marriage. During this, a petitioner said that by not recognizing same sex marriage, you are depriving the children of LGBTQ couples from parenthood.
On the other hand, on behalf of the Center, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that this issue raises the question that what is marriage, between whom, who will decide on this, the government or the court. But the Center cannot be forced to write a new definition on this.
The arguments of the petitioners are over. The hearing is being conducted by a constitutional bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli. The sixth day’s hearing will be held on Thursday.
What did the Solicitor General say?
- The MP-MLA was aware of homosexuality, but he deliberately ignored it. That is, when the debate on the Special Marriage Act was going on, our people’s representatives were not unaware of homosexuality, but they used the words men and women instead of parties.
- Quoting a 1950 parliamentary debate on whether the Special Marriage Act was enacted to show that Parliament was aware of homosexuality. But this aspect was intentionally left out of the law as the marriage law was never intended to include the LGBTQ community.
- There are 6 major religions in India and these religions have always recognized only heterosexual marriages. I submit that the only constitutional option left with the Court is to leave the matter to the Parliament.
- The appeals of the petitioners are not clear. Social approval is necessary for recognition and it should be through Parliament. If the court enforces this, it is only harmful for LGBTQI people, because you are going against the will of the people. We cannot forget what led to the institution of marriage.
SG Mehta reminds CJI of father’s decision
Tushar Mehta referred to a decision of YV Chandrachud, father of CJI Chandrachud, favoring the Centre. The SG said that he had said in the Gurbaksh Singh case that the judiciary should not interfere in the work of Parliament. On this, the CJI said that these decisions are completely settled on judicial powers. But because of this logic, cases from Maneka Gandhi to Saira Banu will have to be reopened. This is probably not your submission.
Important arguments of the petitioners on the fourth day.
1. Jaideep Gupta – Recognition of same sex marriage will prevent forced marriage and conversion
Arguing on behalf of the Intervenor Queer Collective of the Indian Institute of Science, Gupta said – It is wrong to say that the family values that Indians cherish will be affected. Family values are the reason they want to get married.
Right now in the society these people are being forced to marry the opposite gender. What is worse is that there are some people who are prescribing conversion therapy for them, they think it is a disease which can be cured with medicines. Equality will ensure that they avoid forced marriages and conversion therapy.
2. Arundhati Gupta- We need blessings just like any other couple
Advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioner from Raipur, argued that the Center says that recognizing same sex marriage would be playing with personal laws, but we are also a part of the society. Our parents also yearn to see the day when we get married. We need blessings just like any other couple.
Arundhati said that by not recognizing the marriage of LGBTQ couples who have children, you are depriving their children of parenthood.
Now read the important arguments of tomorrow’s hearing…
- Anand Grover: The statement of elite class is wrong, same sex couples came from small towns to big cities: As for the urban elites, such people (LGBT) fled their homes in large numbers. Some of these were from small towns and came to the capitals. Here he sought protection from the High Courts. In such a situation, the statement of elite class is wrong.
- Maneka Guruswamy- Parliament cannot take us out of the purview of the Constitution: The government cannot come to the court and say that this is a matter of Parliament. The basic structure is also ours. We are also part of its soul. Parliament cannot be the reason to exclude us from this guarantee under the Constitution.
- Saurabh Kripal- There is a difference between court and parliament, this case is about marriage equality: Practically the question is how far and how much do we have to go. This court will decide whether it can do so or not. This is the difference between court and parliament. Let us not forget that this case is about marriage equality.
News related to the last 4 hearings in this case…
Hearing on the fourth day- The petitioner said – it is recognized in 12 G-20 countries, we cannot lag behind
The fourth day’s hearing was over. The petitioners said that 34 countries of the world have recognized same sex marriage. These also include 12 countries of the G-20. We should not lag behind in this matter. The petitioner said that the Parliament has not given any positive response in 5 years regarding the rights of LGBT. Read the full news…
Hearing on the third day- CJI asked- Is it necessary to have 2 different gender partners for marriage?
Hearing was held in the Supreme Court for the third consecutive day on Thursday. Amid arguments given by the petitioners for about 4 hours, the Supreme Court asked whether it is necessary for an institution like marriage to have partners of two different genders? While concluding the hearing, CJI Chandrachud named 13 lawyers to argue further. Read full news…
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…