Marriage Equality: What Day 2 Of The Supreme Court Hearing Looked Like

The second day of the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage hearing has put forward many essential arguments. Arguments revolved around marriage equality, the concept of same-sex marriage, the necessity for the views of States and UTs, and more.

The conclusion of the day one hearing on same-sex marriage made it abundantly clear that litigation to validate same-sex marriage will open up Pandora's box of other areas of litigation that will need attention.

The representatives of the Centre at Court such as the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, have been banking on the inconvenience of this Pandora's box of other litigation areas opening up to oppose a judicial verdict on same-sex marriage.

Same Sex Marriage Hearing In Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench today has remarked that the Centre's counsel has no evidence to prove that same-sex marriage is an elitist concept. Additionally, the CJI remarked that it is erroneous to discriminate against people on characteristics they have no control over.

Therefore, while it is true that more people in urban areas have been coming out of the closet, arguments should not be made about it.

After heatedly remarking that it will assess its participation in the same-sex proceedings, today the Centre has filed a fresh affidavit to seek the participation of the States and UTs in this matter. The Solicitor General expressed on behalf of the Centre that the Centre be allowed to compile the wishes of the States and UTs on the matter before the bench moves to adjudicate on the sensitive issue.

Advocate Rohtagi pointed out that the judiciary with the help of laws should set precedent for society on what should be socially acceptable. He quoted the instances of widow remarriage where the judiciary set the precedent for what is acceptable in society.

In addition to the Centre's fresh strategy of delaying the verdict, the bench seemed disturbed by the reading of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act where marriage equality came into the picture.

Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act puts forward the marital age disparity where the minimum age for marriage is 18 for females and 21 for males. The question here is if the biological reading of male and female is removed from the picture altogether then which party would pose as 18 years of age and which party as 21 years of age?

Suggested Reading: CJI Chandrachud On Same-Sex Marriage Hearing: ‘No Absolute Concept Of Man Or Woman