सेम सेक्स मैरिज पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 10वें दिन सुनवाई: आज सबमिशन का फाइनल फेज होगा, राजस्थान शादी की मान्यता के खिलाफ

Supreme Court will hear 20 petitions for recognition of same sex marriage on Thursday i.e. today is the 10th day. Today will be the final phase of submission. A constitutional bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli is hearing the arguments.

At the same time, during the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told on behalf of the Central Government that letters were written to all the states on April 18 to give their opinion on the matter. Among them, replies have been received from Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, UP, Maharashtra, Assam, Sikkim and Rajasthan. Rajasthan is against it. The rest of the states say that there is a need for debate on this issue. What happened in the court from April 18 to the last 9 hearings, read step by step…

Hearing on the 9th day, the Center wrote a letter to all the states, 7 got a reply; 6 in favor of the debate

During the hearing on the ninth day, an intervenor Anson Thomas reached with a petition to remove CJI Chandrachud from hearing the same sex marriage, which was rejected. Tushar Mehta had said, ‘The Supreme Court will know about Baker’s case. He refused to bake a cake for a same sex couple. A case was filed against him. This happened in America as well. When a priest refused to perform a same sex marriage. A case was filed against him. After this, a law had to be made for the protection of the clergy.

Imagine a situation that you have made same sex marriage a law. You did not announce the outline of the rule. After this a same sex couple went to the priest for marriage. He refused saying that his religion only allows marriage between a man and a woman, so will he not be held guilty of contempt of court?’ Read the full news here…

It was said in the hearing on the 8th day – the Constitution of India is not a fakir of the line

Earlier, hearing took place on the 8th day in the matter on Tuesday. During this, Justice Ravindra had said that the Constitution of India is against the fakir idea of ​​the line. It has been breaking old traditions. He said that the constitution broke the caste system, abolished things like untouchability. No constitution in the world has done this.

On this, the Chief Justice said that is it not correct to say that there is no right to marry under the Constitution. It would be far-fetched to say that the right to marry is not a constitutional right.

7th day hearing: The court had said- Center is ready to form a committee to solve the problems of same sex couples

In the hearing on the seventh day on the same sex marriage, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that the Center is ready to form a committee to find a solution to the problems of the same sex couple.

Mehta had said that this committee will not enter into the issue of giving legal recognition to the marriage of these couples. The petitioners i.e. same sex couples can give their suggestions regarding the problems. Let them tell us what steps can be taken. The government is positive on this. Yes, it is definitely a matter that in this matter there is a need for coordination between not one, but many ministries. Read the full news here…

April 27, hearing on the sixth day: Supreme Court had asked – what is the intention of the government in this matter

The Supreme Court had asked the Central Government, ‘If the Judiciary enters into it, it will become a legal issue. The government should explain what it intends to do in this regard and how it is working for the safety and welfare of such people. Homosexuals cannot be ostracized from the society.

On behalf of the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said, ‘The Special Marriage Act is only for people of the opposite gender. It was brought for those of different faiths. The government is not bound to recognize every private relationship. The petitioners want a new class to be created with a new purpose. It was never imagined.

April 26, fifth day of hearing: Center had said – new definition cannot be forced

On behalf of the Central Government, Tushar Mehta said – The court cannot take a different view for different categories of people under the same law. We cannot be forced to redefine. He said that what is meant by ‘plus’ in LGBTQIA+ has not been explained. He asked, there are at least 72 shades and categories of people in this plus. If this court gives recognition to undefined categories then the effect of the decision will be on 160 laws, how do we make it smooth?

Mehta further said that there are some people who refuse to be identified under any gender. How will the law identify them? As a man or a woman? One such category which says that gender depends on mood swings. No one knows what their gender would be in such a situation. Mehta said that the real question is who in this case will decide what is a valid marriage and between whom. Mehta argued whether the matter should not first go to the Parliament or the State Assemblies.

April 25, the fourth day of hearing: CJI said – Parliament has the right to intervene on the issues of the petitioners

On the fourth day of the hearing, CJI Chandrachud said, ‘There is no doubt that Parliament has the right to interfere in the issues raised in these petitions. Therefore, the question is how far the court can go in this matter.

On granting rights under the Special Marriage Act, the Supreme Court said, ‘If we look at it under the Special Marriage Act, we will have to reform many personal law boards as well.’

Justice Kaul and Justice Bhatt said that therefore it would be better to look into whether the right to same-sex marriage can be given or not. Going too deep into it will get complicated.

Advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioners, said that Parliament cannot be given reason for depriving the right enshrined in the Constitution. He said that when the rights of any community are violated, they have the right to approach the constitutional bench on the basis of Article 32 of the Constitution. He also told the court that the petitioners are not expecting any special treatment, rather they want practical interpretation of their relationship under the Special Marriage Act.

April 20, third day’s hearing; CJI asked- Is it necessary to have 2 different gender partners for marriage

On the third day of the hearing, there was a debate in the court on the adoption of the child. Advocate Vishwanathan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that LGBTQ parents are equally capable of raising children as parents of the opposite sex. The bench did not agree with the contention that unlike the opposite sex, same-sex couples cannot take proper care of their children. The bench said during the hearing that people are now moving away from the notion that there must be a boy. CJI said- Same-sex relationship is not just a physical relationship but is more than a stable, emotional relationship.

April 19, second day of hearing: Central government said- states should also be included in this debate

On the second day of the hearing, the Central Government appealed that all the States and Union Territories should be made parties in this matter. Appearing for the petitioners, Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that marriage is required to avail benefits like adoption, surrogacy, inter-state succession, tax exemption, tax deduction, compassionate government appointments etc.

At the same time, the Supreme Court told the government that it cannot call it the idea of ​​the urban elite class. Especially when the government has not given any data in favor of this claim. CJI Chandrachud said, ‘This may seem like an urban thinking because now people have started coming forward openly in urban areas.’

April 18, Day 1 of hearing: Same sex marriage petitions to be discussed by elite class people

On the first day of hearing, the Supreme Court said that it would examine whether rights can be given to same-sex couples through the Special Marriage Act of 1954, without going into the field of personal law. On behalf of the Central Government, the Solicitor General had said that these petitions reflect the views of the people of the elite class.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, argued that legally, marriage is a relationship between a biological man and a biological woman. On this, the Supreme Court said that there is no concrete concept of discrimination between men and women.