The Centre has filed an affidavit earlier than the Supreme Court opposing the authorized recognition of same-sex marriage. In its affidavit, the Centre informed the apex court docket that same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct lessons which can’t be handled identically. The Centre additionally apprised the Supreme Court that dwelling collectively as companions by same-sex people, which is decriminalised now, isn’t comparable with the Indian household unit idea of a husband, a spouse and youngsters. The Centre’s affidavit comes a day forward of the case listening to within the court docket.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a batch of pleas looking for authorized validation for same-sex marriages tomorrow. According to Monday’s (March 13) trigger listing uploaded on the apex court docket’s web site, the pleas are listed for listening to earlier than a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala.
The apex court docket had, on January 6, clubbed and transferred to itself all such petitions pending earlier than completely different excessive courts, together with the Delhi High Court. It had stated the counsel showing for the Centre and advocate Arundhati Katju, representing the petitioners, shall collectively put together a standard compilation of the written submissions, paperwork and precedents on which reliance could be positioned in the course of the course of the listening to.
“Soft copies of the compilations shall be exchanged between the parties and shall be made available to the court. List the petition along with connected petitions and transferred cases on March 13, 2023 for directions,” the bench had stated in its January 6 order.
The counsel for a number of petitioners had informed the bench that they need the apex court docket to switch all of the circumstances to itself for an authoritative pronouncement on the problem and that the Centre can file its response within the high court docket.
On January 3, the apex court docket had stated it could hear on January 6 the pleas looking for a switch of petitions for recognition of same-sex marriages pending earlier than the excessive courts to the highest court docket.
On December 14 final 12 months, the apex court docket had sought the Centre’s response to two pleas looking for a switch of the petitions pending within the Delhi High Court for instructions to recognise same-sex marriages to itself.
Prior to that, on November 25 final 12 months, the apex court docket had sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two homosexual {couples} looking for enforcement of their proper to marry and a path to the authorities involved to register their marriages beneath the Special Marriage Act.
A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, who was additionally a part of the Constitution bench that in 2018 decriminalised consensual homosexual intercourse, issued a discover to the Centre in November final 12 months, apart from looking for Attorney General R Venkataramani’s help in coping with the pleas.
The high court docket’s five-judge Constitution bench, in a path-breaking unanimous verdict delivered on September 6, 2018, held that consensual intercourse amongst grownup homosexuals or heterosexuals in a personal house isn’t against the law whereas hanging down part of the British-era penal legislation that criminalised it on the bottom that it violated the constitutional proper to equality and dignity.
The petitions on which the highest court docket issued the discover in November final 12 months have sought a path that the precise to marry an individual of 1’s selection be prolonged to LGBTQ (lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, transgender and queer) folks as a part of their elementary proper.
One of the petitions has sought an interpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in a gender-neutral method the place an individual isn’t discriminated in opposition to due to his sexual orientation.
The apex court docket, in its 2018 judgment, held that part 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalised consensual homosexual intercourse was “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”.
It had stated the 158-year-old legislation had grow to be an “odious weapon” to harass the LGBT neighborhood by subjecting its members to discrimination and unequal therapy. (With PTI/ANI inputs)
