Ashish Ranjan
Same-sex marriage: The Supreme Court, which on Monday heard a group of petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages, has referred the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. The case hearing will commence on April 18.
The Supreme Court requested the Centre’s response to distinct petitions filed by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a directive to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act on November 25, 2013.
The notice was issued in response to petitions requesting that the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choosing be extended to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) individuals.One of the petitions sought a gender-neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 in which a person is not discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation.
On December 14, 2012, the Supreme Court requested the Centre’s response to two petitions requesting the transfer of pending same-sex marriage petitions from the Delhi High Court to itself.On January 6, the Supreme Court consolidated and transferred to itself all pending petitions of this nature pending before various high courts, including the Delhi High Court.
The Center filed its affidavit opposing same-sex marriage vehemently on Sunday. It informed the Supreme Court in the affidavit that the definition of an Indian family includes a biological man and woman and that it is not possible for the court to change the entire legislative policy of the country, which is profoundly rooted in religious and societal norms.
Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju defended the central government’s opposition to same-sex marriage by stating that it is a significant policy issue that requires discussion.
Also Read | Centre opposes same-sex marriage files affidavit in SC citing ‘Indian family concept’
“You must make it obvious that the government is not interfering with an individual’s personal life or activities. Citizens’ personal freedom and activities are never questioned, disturbed, or regulated by the government. However, when the issue involves the institution of marriage, it is a matter of policy that requires significant consideration “said Rijiju.
