A Constitution bench of five judges will hear the Supreme Court’s request to recognise same-sex unions, the court announced on Monday. On April 18, the Court scheduled the case for hearing and stated that the case would be treated as a constitutional case. The Central Government has opposed the Supreme Court petitions that were filed by gay couples, arguing that same-sex relationships and living together as partners are not comparable to the Indian family unit concept, which calls for a biological man to be the “husband,” a biological woman to be the “wife,” and the children that result from their union. According to Article 145(3) of the Constitution, there must be a minimum of five judges present to decide any case in which there is a significant legal issue as to how this Constitution should be interpreted. The Center has maintained that the identification of a specific type of social relationship cannot be a basic right. It claims that by registering same-sex marriages, existing personal and codified law rules including “degrees of banned relationship,” “conditions of marriage,” and “ceremonial and ritual requirements” will be violated.
The state only recognises heterosexual relationships as a valid form of marriage, the government has stated, while same-sex relationships are not illegal. The Chief Justice of India responded by saying that the court bears great responsibility for how society will move forward and that this will have serious consequences for society as a whole. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, speaking on behalf of the petitioner, contended that it would be improper to depend on justifications such cultural ethos following the Navtej Singh Johar ruling. The Swapnil Tripathi case held that live streaming must be done in circumstances of public or constitutional interest, therefore he further argued that the proceedings in the case should be aired live. For one of the petitioners, senior advocate KV Viswanathan claimed that the Transgender Protection Act, which aims to grant LGBTQ people equal rights, does not change the fact that the government does not recognise same-sex marriages.
According to Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a group of people cannot be denied the right to marry based only on their sexual orientation. The petitioners have argued for greater constitutional rights, including the right to life and the right to dignity, which are enshrined in the constitution’s preamble and natural occurrences of Articles 14, 19, and 21. The bench referred the case to the Constitution Bench and instructed the petitioners to depend on the common compilation and notify the nodal counsel of any cases they planned to rely on. If any more points need to be added to the counter, they must be done so within three weeks.
