Supreme Court Debunks Notion of Same-Sex Marriage as ‘Urban-Elitist Concept
Representative image
19-04-2023 : The Supreme Court has refuted the argument that same-sex marriages are an exclusive practise and emphasized that the government cannot discriminate against people based on their inborn traits. The court emphasized that the claim that same-sex marriages are only common in metropolitan areas or among a specific group is unsupported by data from the government. One of a couple’s members can still adopt even if they are in a gay or lesbian relationship, the court added. One of the petitioners, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that any classification that discriminates against people based on their inborn nature is against their fundamental rights and constitutional morality. Sexual orientation is intrinsic to a person’s individuality and identity, he claimed.
The Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, supported this argument, stating that the state cannot discriminate against individuals based on characteristics they have no control over.
The court further noted that something which is innate cannot have a class bias, and while manifestations of same-sex relationships may be more prevalent in urban areas due to people feeling more comfortable in coming out, there is no data to indicate that it is limited to urban areas. Singhvi pointed out that the Centre’s counter-affidavit lacks any survey, data, or evidence to support its claims.
Another advocate, K.V. Viswanathan, argued that branding same-sex marriage as an urban elitist view is lacking in grace, citing the case of his transgender client who rose to a prominent position in a multinational company after being disowned by her family.
Singhvi emphasized that marriage is sought for community and social validation, security, and dignity, and that marital status has legal and civil benefits such as tax benefits, inheritance, and adoption. He further highlighted that the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is based solely on sex and sexual orientation.
The bench, comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, noted that even in a gay or lesbian relationship, one of the partners can still adopt, and the argument that it would have a negative psychological impact on the child is belied by the fact that homosexuality has been decriminalized. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing some petitioners, suggested that making marriage laws gender-neutral and inclusive of all individuals would go a long way in solving the issue.
Rohatgi further emphasized that the court has the moral authority and public confidence to push society towards acknowledging same-sex marriages and ensuring the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. The hearing in the matter will continue on Thursday. The batch of petitions challenges certain provisions of marriage laws as unconstitutional for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, or alternatively, seeks to interpret these provisions broadly to include same-sex marriage.
