Same-Sex Marriage 'Judgment Would Be Read Across Jurisdictions': Solicitor General Hails SC Bench - Highlights
Same Sex Marriage Verdict Highlights: Hello and welcome to ABP Live Same Sex Marriage Live Blog, please follow this space for all the latest updates on Supreme Court's verdict on same sex marriage.
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Mahesh Jethmalani tells ANI, "...Supreme Court has said, we don't have the power to give you the right. It doesn't flow from the Constitution. If the right to marry flows from the Constitution then we could say that you have the right to marry as per the Constitution. So, if the right to marriage is not constitutionally guaranteed, then it can only be given to you only by law. The statute can only be passed by the legislature. So, they have said that the question of same-sex marriage requires legal recognition, and if it requires legal recognition, the only institution which can accord that recognition is Parliament and the Union Government."
"We expect the Parliamentarians to understand the feelings (of LGBTQ community) and take a necessary step in this issue," says transgender activist Reshma Prasad on Supreme Court's observation on same-sex marriage, as quoted by PTI.
"They (Supreme Court bench) have recognised that queer couples face a lot of persecution and discrimination due to exclusion from the right to marry under existing laws. They have given certain directions to state, police, etc., on how to tackle such discrimination, and have recognised that transgender persons who are in heterosexual relationships do have the right to marry under existing laws," says advocate Shivangi Sharma on Supreme Court's observations on same-sex marriage, as quoted by PTI.
RSS leader Sunil Ambekar told ANI, "RSS welcomes the decision given by the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. It is correct that the parliamentary system in our democratic system is capable of addressing many issues related to it. They can make appropriate decisions on it."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Centre in the matter welcomes the judgement. "I wholeheartedly welcome the judgment. I am happy that my stand has been accepted. All four judgments have taken the jurisprudence of our nation and the intellectual exercise which went into writing the judgments to the next level. There are very few courts in the world where one can expect this level of intellectual and scholarly judicial exercise. This judgment would be read across jurisdictions," he said as per ANI.
"Indian National Congress has always stood with all our citizens to protect their freedoms, choices, liberties and rights. We, as a party of inclusion, firmly believe in non discriminatory processes — judicial, social, and political," the Congress party on same-sex marriage.
Film Director & LGBTQ+ activist Onir tells ANI, "We had high expectations from today's verdict. But it has been very disappointing. When the hearing started, they were really making good points. The suggestions that they gave to the police department for the implementation of the safety of LGBTQI people are very important... But after that, on the main topic, he said that the government should take this decision, and he left it to Parliament... In 2018, SC took the decision that's why it was a positive decision. As the court takes decisions on human rights, while the government takes a decision on the idea of how to get more votes..."
Advocate J. Sai Deepak, representing respondent Bharatiya Stree Shakti, tells ANI, "I think the other side may prefer a review or a reference on certain legal questions, I am not sure of it though. I think the Government may want to look at what kind of operational issues it can address without going for legislative amendments of the SMA (Special Marriage Act) because ultimately on the question of legislative amendments of SMA because it involves the question of revisiting the institution of marriage...The in-between measure could be that it recognises certain civil unions without giving it the same status as marriage and also has a different regime if they wish to adopt. Child Health experts will have to be considered. I think the Government as well as the Parliament may perhaps constitute a committee..."
"It's a progressive judgment in some ways. There will be a fight for it in the future as well. The verdict didn't come in the exact way that we anticipated, but at least the conversations around it have been initiated," says one of the LGBTQ supporters on the Supreme Court's observations on same-sex marriage as quoted by PTI.
Lawyer Karuna Nundy told news agency ANI, "...There were some opportunities today that I believe has been pushed off to the legislators and the central govt has made their stand clear with regards to marriage, we hope that their committee will ensure that civil unions are recognised and concomitants of marriage are then brought into law at least with regards to civil unions. I will also say that Congress and other govts in power in the states have many opportunities to bring into law the recognition of a partner's rights to make medical decisions because they can legislate on health, they can look at employment non-discrimination, there is a lot that can be done...if we heard anything that was unanimous it was that queer citizens have rights...rights of queer citizens must be protected and state govts can protect them"
Alok Kumar, international working president of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, has 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."
Muslim cleric Maulana Sajid Rashidi has said the Supreme Court should not recognise same-sex marriages and rule them as a "crime" instead. Maulana Rashidi has said that same-sex marriage was not consistent with India's culture and was, in fact, a practice borrowed from the West.
One of the petitioners and LGBTQIA+ rights activist Harish Iyer says, "Though at the end, the verdict was not in our favour, but so many observations (by Supreme Court) made were in our favour. They have also put the responsibility on the central government. The Solicitor General said so many things against us so it is important for us to go to our elected govt, MPs and MLAs and tell them we are as different as two people. War is underway...it might take some time but we will get societal equality."
"We have been fighting for long and will keep doing so. Regarding adoption also nothing was done, what the CJI said was very good regarding adoption but it's disappointing that other justices didn't agree...this is democracy but we are denying basic rights to our own citizens," says one of the petitioners and activist Anjali Gopalan.
The SC Said two persons can live together and it cannot be criminalised. Section 377 read down has enabled the same. The right to be left alone and right to dignity and right to live life with ones own choice is an integral feature of article 21.
The CJI directed the Centre and State governments to ensure that there is no discrimination in access to goods and services to the queer community and government to sensitise public about queer rights. Government to create a hotline for the queer community, create safe houses 'Garima Grih' for queer couples who face violence and ensure inter-sex children are not forced to undergo operations. CJI stated, "Right to enter into a union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing laws including personal laws. Unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child."
Broadly agreeing with the Chief Justice Of India, Justice Kaul said, "The non-heterosexual unions are entitled to protection under the constitution of India. This court has taken on board the statement of SG Mehta to have a committee to see the benefits that will flow to such couples. SMA postulates a special form of marriage and thus it provides a secular form of marriage.. I disagree from Justice Bhat that purpose of SMA was to recognise sexual orientation...."
CJI DY Chandrachud: Petitioners submit the violence and discrimination faced by queer community.
Directions:
1. Union, states, UT re directed to ensure queer community is not discriminated against, no discrimination in supply of goods and services, sensitise the public, to prevent harassment of any kind, to establish safe house in all areas, to ensure that sex change operations are not allowed when they are not of age to comprehend the effect of such procedures, no person shall undergo hormonal therapy as a precondition to be able to be recognised as a queer person
Directions to police 1. police shall ensure that no queer person are harassed to ascertain gender identity, no force by police to go back to their natal families, when a police complaint is filed by a queer couple after verification due protection to be granted.
CJI DY Chandrachud said: "Humans live in complex societies... our ability to feel love and connection with one another makes us feel human. we have an innate need to be seen and see. the need to share our emotions make us who we are. these relationships may take many forms, natal families, romantic relationships etc.. the need to form part of family is core part of the human trait and is important for self development For the full enjoyment of such relationships... such unions need recognition and there cannot be denial of basic goods and services. The state can indirectly infringe upon the freedom if it does not recognize the same. there may be reasonable restriction on the right.. but the right to intimate association needs to be unrestricted. tangible benefits of marriage is traceable to contents of law. The freedom to choose a partner and to enter into relationship and an intimate relationship will be otiose if state does not recognise the same and not having a bouquet of benefits otherwise there will be systemic discrimination. the committee proposed by SG Mehta will look at benefits meant for queer couples.
While reading out the verdict in the same-sex marriage hearing, CJI Chandrachud said it’s incorrect to say marriage is a static and unchanging institution. If the Special Marriage Act is struck down, it will take the country to the pre-Independence era, he adds. Whether a change in the regime of the Special Marriage Act is required is for the Parliament to decide. This Court must be careful to not enter into legislative domain, he said.
CJI Chandrachud has said homosexuality or queerness is not an urban concept or restricted to the upper classes of society... Queerness can be regardless of one's caste or class or socio-economic status.
CJI DY Chandrachud says there are four judgements. CJI says there is a degree of agreement and there is degree of disagreement in the judgements.
Hopeful about the SC verdict on marriage quality, one of the petitioners and LGBTQIA+ rights activist Harish Iyer said, "We hope we will win, we will get equal rights and we can get married to those we love. This is not just about marriage, during the covid time, there were so many people who were staying with their partners and when their partner was dying, they couldn't give permission to remove their partners from life support, because they had no right. We also want constitutional rights not just the heterosexual people."
The Supreme Court will on Tuesday deliver its judgment on pleas seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage in the country.
Background
Same Sex Marriage Verdict Highlights: Hello and welcome to ABP Live Same Sex Marriage Live Blog, please follow this space for all the latest updates on Supreme Court's verdict on same sex marriage.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliver its much anticipated verdict on the pleas seeking legal validation for the same sex marriage in the country on Tuesday. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had reserved its verdict on the matter on May 11 after a marathon hearings of 10 days.
Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha were also the part of the five-judge Constitution bench which commenced the hearing on the matter on April 18.
The Centre had largely opposed to the petitions during the hearing saying any constitutional declaration made by the apex court on the petitions seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage may not be a "correct course of action" as the court will not be able to foresee, envisage, comprehend and deal with its fallout.
The Centre had sought responses from the state on the matter and told the court that seven states had responded on the issue of same-sex marriage and the governments of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Assam had opposed the petitioners' contention seeking legal endorsement for such wedlock.
While hearing the matter, the bench made it clear that it would not go into personal laws governing marriages while deciding the pleas seeking judicial validation for same-sex marriages adding that the very notion of a man and a woman, as referred to in the Special Marriage Act, is not "an absolute based on genitals".
Some of the petitioners in the case had urged the Supreme Court
to use its plenary power, "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union which would ensure LGBTQIA++ lead a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
LGBTQIA++ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual and ally persons.
- - - - - - - - - Advertisement - - - - - - - - -