A five-judge Constitution bench is hearing the petitions.
Here are top 10 points in this big story:
Those present in the proceedings don't represent the views of the nation and the court must first examine if it can at all hear this matter, said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the centre.
His remarks came before a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which was hearing the requests - termed as "mere urban elitist views" by the centre yesterday. The bench also comprises Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha.
The parliament is the only constitutionally permissible forum to decide on creation of a new social relationship, asserted the top law officer. "We are still questioning whether it's for courts to decide on its own," he said.
On this, the Chief Justice said the court can't be told how to make a decision and that it wants to hear the petitioners' side.
The right to same-sex marriage should be allowed in view of the earlier court orders and the judgment decriminalising homosexuality, argued senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of those seeking legal sanction to same-sex marriages.
On the Chief Justice seeking to know their demands, Mr Rohtagi sought that the Special Marriage Act should mention 'spouse' instead of man and women. The concept of marriage has changed, he argued. "We cherish and desire the same institution as marriage as it is respected in the society. Now under the Domestic Violence Act, even live-in relationships are allowed," Mr Rohatgi said.
"We seek a declaration that we have a right to get married. That right will be recognized by the state as under the Special Marriage Act and the marriage will be recognized by the state after declaration of this court. This is because even now we are stigmatized - even if we are holding hands and walk. This is even after Article 377 judgment," added Mr Rohatgi.
In its submission yesterday, the centre said a court order recognising same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. It had also said the court must refrain from passing such "omnibus orders".
The centre also termed marriage as an "exclusive heterogenous institution" and said the question of considering it equal to the existing concept of marriage "seriously affects the interests of every citizen".
Relationships like marriages are rooted in the Indian social context, the centre said in the last hearing, pointing out marriages are considered sacred in religious laws - and are valid "only between a biological male and biological female."
Post a comment
