'It Should Be Declared Criminal': Top Muslim Cleric, VHP Hail SC's Refusal To Legalise Same-Sex Marriage

A top Muslim cleric and Vishva Hindu Parishad have hailed the Supreme Court for not recognising same-sex marriage in the country.

International working president of Vishva Hindu Parishad, Alok Kumar and top Muslim cleric Maulana Sajid Rashidi have welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to not recognise same-sex marriage in the country. Rashidi said the practice should be declared a crime adding that it is not part of the Indian culture and has been borrowed from the best.

"The practice does not represent the Indian culture and is, in fact, an idea borrowed from the West. The Europeans and the West are open about these things but such practices should never be encouraged or allowed in India. All marital practices in the country are rooted in our time-honoured values and societal traditions. The Supreme Court should carefully consider our core values and beliefs before passing its final verdict in the matter," Rashidi told ANI.

"The decision to decrminalise same-sex marriage in 2018 was wrong. The practice should never have been removed from the criminal category. It is unnatural for a person to marry another person of his gender. Nature (Kudrat) made boys and girls different. This (pleas seeking SC nod to same-sex marriage) is nothing but an attempt to vitiate Indian culture. I urge the Supreme Court to criminalise the practice," Rashidi added, as per ANI.

Whereas, VHP's Alok Kumar said, "I am happy that the Supreme Court has observed that the relationship between two boys or two girls cannot be recognised as a marriage."

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made a range of crucial observations while delivering its judgment on the legal validation of same-sex marriage in the country. The court said that queer couples can have a live-in relationship, choose their partners, have the right to gender identity, right to sexual orientation, and they have full freedom in the same but recognisation of their marriage rests with the Parliament. The court, in a 3:2 verdict, said that it is up to the state to ensure what petitioners are seeking.