In a landmark decision in 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalised homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite the 2018 verdict, members of India’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender queer and more (LGBTQ+) community worry about societal rejection and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. Legal rights for LGBTQ individuals in India have grown over the last decade, with the majority of these developments brought about by the Supreme Court’s intervention. The Supreme Court of India began hearing petitions seeking the legalisation of same-sex marriage on April 18, 2023. The question that has come up for the debate on marriage equality is whether same sex marriage is an ‘urban elitist concept’ or integral right in comparison to other rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Q. WHAT IS
CENTRE’S ARGUMENT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
“The
Centre’s fundamental argument is that same-sex marriage is not recognised in
Indian traditions, ethos, culture, or societal conceptions of the institution
of marriage”
· The Union government
has adopted a position against same-sex
marriage, arguing that such a decision belongs to Parliament and not the
judiciary and that the petition represented urban elitist attitudes and would
not be supported by the majority of people. One cannot assert that the legal
establishment of a new social institution like same-sex marriage is a question
of right. The holy union of marriage between a biological man and woman in
India is threatened because the Parliament, not the courts, must make decisions
regarding same-sex unions.
· The Centre’s
fundamental argument is that same-sex marriage is not recognised in Indian
traditions, ethos, culture, or societal conceptions of the institution of
marriage. Marriage, it has been suggested, is a sacrament between a biological male and a biological female to make a
holy union in order to have children. As a result, it is contended that
Parliament, rather than the Court, is the appropriate institution to debate and
decide whether same-sex marriages should be legalized
· Tushar Mehta, India’s
Solicitor General, argued that the state has a legitimate interest in
regulating marriages, citing factors such as the age of consent, prohibition of
bigamy, prescription of prohibited degrees of marriage (which means one cannot
marry their lineal ascendants, such as parents or grandparents), judicial separation,
and divorce. Mehta also foresaw a future in which arguments about sexual
orientation freedom and autonomy could be used to challenge the law on incest.
· According to the
Centre, ‘creation or recognition of a
new social institution cannot be claimed as a matter of right or choice, much
less a fundamental right. The right to personal autonomy does not include
the right to have same-sex marriage recognised. The court would rule solely on
petitions containing elitist views, whereas the legislature would consider the
broader views and voices of the rural, semi-rural, and urban populations,
religious denominations, personal laws and customs, and the impact of same-sex
unions on other marriage laws. The
existing concept of marriage as a diverse institution is protected by law and
religion. Legalising same-sex marriage will significantly affect the interests
of every citizen.’
· As per the Union
Government, The Transgender Persons
(Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, has already safeguarded fundamental rights
such as the right to privacy and the right to choose one’s sexual
orientation. The establishment of additional rights, the acknowledgment of
relationships, and the provision of legal legitimacy for said relationships can
only be carried out by a competent legislative body rather than through
judicial decision-making. Marriage is widely regarded as a crucial component of
a nation’s social policy on a global scale. The responsibility of defining,
recognising, and regulating same-sex marriage falls within the jurisdiction of
the appropriate legislature, which is composed of elected representatives of
the people. The decision not to recognise same-sex marriage is merely a
reflection of legislative policy.
Q. WHAT DOES THE LQBTQ+ COMMUNITY WANT?
· According to Senior
Advocate SaurabhKirpal, an overwhelming 99% of same-sex couples want to tie the
knot. They believe tying the knot will give their relationship significance,
direction, and a distinct sense of self. Once upon a time, they said, they were
deemed as lawbreakers. One speaker described their experience as that of
“third-class citizens” According to some individuals, there is a common belief
that they are “inferior citizens” and hence should be satisfied with their
status.
· In a recent court
hearing, Senior Advocate MukulRohatgi presented arguments on behalf of the
LGBTQ+ petitioners, stating that the right
to marriage for non-heterosexual couples is implied in Articles 14, 15, 16, 19,
and 21. Rohatgi further emphasised that this right is particularly
significant in light of the Supreme Court’s previous rulings in the cases of
Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India and KS Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of
India. In the wake of the historic ruling in N. S. JoharOrs. V. UOI, which
invalidated Sec. 377 of the IPC insofar as it criminalises consensual same-sex
relations, there is growing momentum to apply the principles of transformative
constitutionalism and progressive realisation to expand the rights of LGBTQ+
individuals. Advocates argue that recognising same-sex marriages under the law
would be a crucial step in this direction, giving LGBTQ+ couples a new
dimension of legal recognition and protection.
· Same-sex couples and
LGBTQ+ activists are making a case that the government’s refusal to acknowledge
same-sex marriage is a violation of the Constitutional right to equality and
the privileges that married heterosexual couples enjoy. According to senior
advocate MenakaGuruswamy, the notion of
same-sex marriage is not limited to the elite. It also addresses numerous small
towns. Marriage is a highly sought-after goal among youth in that region,
and the plea is to spare them the ordeal. She pleaded for a positive
implementation of the right to marry. Gay couples and LGBTQ+ activists are
claiming that the government’s refusal to acknowledge same-sex marriage is a
violation of the constitutional right to equality and the privileges that
married heterosexual couples enjoy.
· Advocate
ArundhatiKatju, MenakaGuruswamy, and GovindManoharan have argued that the
failure to recognise same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination that
undermines the dignity and self-fulfilment of LGBTQ+ couples. During the court
proceedings, it was emphasised that individuals
who identify as LGBTQ+ make up approximately 7-8% of the country’s population.
Petitioners have highlighted that LGBTQ+ citizens are not afforded legal
protection under approximately 15 laws that guarantee rights such as wages,
gratuities, adoption, surrogacy, and more.
Q. How Supreme Court Responded on Same-Sex Marriage?
· According to the Supreme
Court of India, same-sex marriages
cannot be considered an urban elitist concept simply because more people
from cities are coming out of the closet. According to the CJI, there is no
absolute concept of a man or a woman at all. The postulation is far more
complex than categorising a person according to the genitals they are born
with. CJI Chandrachud said the matter might be tackled on three levels:
o
One, the government
could easily make administrative modifications.
o
Two, by modifying
subordinate legislation such as rules and regulations, which were also within
the purview of the government.
o
Three, by enacting
substantial legislative changes to formally recognise the right of same-sex
couples to marry by gender neutralizing the Special Marriage Act.
Q. WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ?
· Advocates of marriage
equality contend that the principle of equal rights necessitates parity in all
respects. In a just and equitable society, discrimination based on race,
religion, gender, or sexual orientation is unacceptable, and the withholding of
marriage rights constitutes a blatant form of such discrimination. Both gay and
heterosexual couples should be entitled to the legal rights that come with
marriage, including those related to taxes, property ownership, inheritance,
and adoption. The act of denying equal rights to individuals who identify as
gay or lesbian can be classified as homophobia, regardless of any attempts to
justify or disguise it.
· Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution says that the right
to get married is part of the right to life. The Human Rights Charter says
that the right to get married is part of the right to start a family. Advocates
of marriage equality say the right to marry is a right that everyone has, no
matter what gender they are. Marriage is considered a long-term bond that lets
two people find other freedoms together, like the freedom to express
themselves, be close to each other, and grow spiritually. This is true for
everyone, no matter how they identify sexually, they say.
· Article 21 of the
Constitution says that everyone has the right to life. Denying someone the
right to choose a life partner on their own terms is a clear abuse of this
right. Since the right to choose a partner is guaranteed by the Constitution
for LGBTQ+ people as well, not recognising same-sex marriage goes against the
right to life and personal freedom in Article 21 of the Constitution, they
argue Like decisions about birth control, family ties, having children, and
raising them, which are all protected by the Constitution, decisions about
marriage are some of the most personal a person can make. So, it is very unfair
to take away the most basic freedom of getting married to the person of one’s
choice, they argue. Because same-sex marriage is not recognised, LGBTQ+ people
are denied the rights that come with a legal marriage, such as the right to
adopt, receive, and be taken care of.
· Since same-sex
weddings are not supported by law, many couples say they have had to deal with
a lot of problems. Indian law makes it hard for LGBTQ+ people to own or
transfer property. Gay and lesbian
couples are not allowed to use an Indian surrogate mother to have children. And
people who are LGBTQ+ can only try to adopt as single parents. Many
same-sex partners think that legalising same-sex marriage would not only be a
big step towards equality, but that it would also lead to more gay people
coming out.
· The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child
Rights (DCPCR) said that same-sex couples would be just as good parents as
straight parents to children raised by them. By making gay marriages
illegal, the state is denying the child the legal protection of having two
parents and a guardian.
Q. WHAT ARE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGES?
· Critics say that
marriage is described as the union of a man and a woman, and that changing that
would go against natural law and
threaten both the institution of marriage and the family’s role in keeping
society together. Gay people can have civil unions, but marriage is a step too
far, they argue.
· According to them,
talking about equal rights in this situation makes no sense. If that were true,
then polygamy and marriages between relatives would also have to be allowed,
they argue. Every right has some limits.
If homosexuality was made legal, it would be another step towards being
accepted by most people, they argue. No one can stop gay people from loving
each other or living in relationships, but, according to them, that doesn’t
mean they can get married.
· According to Sara
McLanahan, who was a sociologist at Princeton University, homosexuality could
raise a class of children who live apart from their mother or father. A similar
concept is expressed in David Popenoe’s book ‘Life Without Father’ If same-sex
civil marriage becomes more popular, lesbian couples are more likely to end up
with children, it argues, elaborating that fathers are effective at reducing antisocial behaviour and
delinquency in boys and sexual activity in females. Eleanor MacCoby, a
Stanford psychologist, wrote in her book The Two Sexes-Although the research on
child outcomes is limited, it appears that children
raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to develop gender and
sexual abnormalities.
· Unlike its Delhi
equivalent, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)
stated that same-sex marriage would
violate the terms of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Juvenile Justice Act of
2015 makes it illegal for a single male, let alone two men, to adopt a girl
child. The NCPCR cited a study from the Catholic University of America that
found that children of same-sex couples
had twice as many emotional issues than children of heterogeneous parents.
It argued that a proper legislative system regarding same-sex couples must be
adopted.
· Many religious organisations
and non-governmental organisations say that Indian society is not ready for
such weddings to be legalised. Their explanations range from the concept of
“marriage” to the “psychological impact” on children of growing up with two men
or two women as parents.
· Marriages in India
are governed by a complicated legal structure with a religious foundation. As a
result, they are controlled under the Hindu
Marriage Act of 1955, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936, the Christian
Marriage and Divorce Act of 1957, and Muslim Personal Laws, all of which lack a
rigorous statutory framework. Except for the Special Marriage Act (SMA) of 1954,
all marriage laws recognise marriages between a man and a woman. SMA was
enacted by Parliament to facilitate inter-religious marriages. As a result, the
legislative intent behind the use of gender-neutral wording in Section 4 of the
SMA cannot be assumed to be in favour of same-sex marriages.
· Traditional family and marriage concepts are experiencing
evolutionary challenges. Rajiv Mehrishi
in his article, “Same-sex marriage and liberal elite’s conceit: Parliament must
decide on the issue” says that in the
opinion of many, Indian society at large sees marriage as a solemn union of
opposite sexes, with the likelihood of procreation, limited by choice or
medical issues. ‘No survey or opinion poll is necessary to determine this. The
elected representatives are in touch with and responsive to what people feel,
otherwise, they would not be elected. They, more than anyone else in the
country, know the pulse of the people. If society at large had felt strongly
about same-sex marriage, no politician would dare oppose it.
· There are several
laws enacted in the recent past that reflect a demand from society: The
tightening of rape laws post the Delhi 2012 rape, for example. For any group,
no matter how liberal they imagine themselves to be, to think that they know
better than all others, is righteousness at its worst. Maybe rural and
small-town India think and feel differently. Unfortunately, holding the beliefs
and feelings of an overwhelming majority in contempt, valorising it as
intellectual superiority, seems to have become the forte of the “liberal”
elite. The demand for recognising same-sex marriage cannot be dismissed out of
hand but neither can be the view that is opposed to it. Let everyone be
entitled to their views. Let us respect our Constitution and let Parliament and
legislatures debate and decide on the issue.