Today marked day 4 of the Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage petitions. Senior Advocates Geeta Luthra, Anand Grover, Jayna Kothari, Menaka Guruswamy, and Saurabh Kirpal argued for marriage equality in today's hearing.
Today's hearing occurred amidst fresh objections by the BCI and the Delhi Bar Association on the SC hearing of same-gender marriage petitions.
The Supreme Court hearing brought forward the dilemma of the judges on the extent personal laws be tinkered with should same-sex marriages gain recognition in India. As rightly put forward in past hearings, same-sex marriages gaining recognition in India would mean little if same-sex couples were not able to enjoy the same marital rights that heterosexual married couples enjoyed in India.
SC Same-Sex Marriage Hearing Day 4
Today's hearing on same-sex marriage petitions was initiated by Advocate Luthra. Her petitions stood out from all the other petitions argued at the SC hearing so far as her petitioners had already gained marital recognition in another country.
Advocate Luthra moved the court on behalf of her petitioners under the Foreign Marriage Act as despite being recognised as a married couple with the guardianship of a child abroad, they were denied recognition as spouses in India.
Advocate Luthra made a strong case on behalf of her petitioners on grounds of discrimination of sex.
Advocate Grover argued against the Centre by saying that it turns a blind eye to same-sex and transgender relations that existed before the colonial rule and also have been documented in Hindu scriptures. Quoting the instance of his rural petitioners for same-sex marriage he countered Centre's notion of it being an urban elitist concept. Grover further states that India being a diverse nation has a diverse set of views advocating for the cause which the legislature must make a note of.
Advocate Kothari argued the right of transgender persons to matrimony and opposed the idea of a heterosexual family unit. There are instances of single parenthood and the notion of a family should not be invalidated purely because of one's gender identity. Advocate Grover brought forward instances where transgender persons suffer violence at the hands of the natal families.
Advocate Guruswamy advocating for the rights of the queer community argued that the people gave themselves the constitution and that the parliament is bound by it. This sparked fresh debate in the Court on the extent of judicial interference that could be allowed on the ambit of personal laws.
Advocate Kirpal astutely pointed out the Special Marriage Act would have been struck down if it had been deemed discriminatory for the matrimonial alliance of heterosexual couples. Furthermore, speaking against the notion of a perfect heterosexual family unit he pointed out the concept of lavender marriages and the queer brain drain that takes place in India owing to queer discrimination.
Suggested Read: Gender Neutral Reading, Marital Age Inclusivity Discussed: Day 3 Of SC Hearing
Follow Us/shethepeople/media/post_banners/H3HKXFYD0IiavU76Dy2C.jpg)
/shethepeople/media/agency_attachments/iUYfaBbcMozaYLoGnoov.png)
