“Notions of man, woman, genitals do not define gender in an

absolute sense”- Supreme Court

Petition-To recognize same-sex marriage under the Special

Marriage Act instead of delving into personal laws.

The five judges presiding over this case are- Chief Justice of
India DY Chandrachud, Advocate SK Kaul, Advocate Ravindra
Bhat, Advocate Hima Kohli, and Advocate PS Narasimha.

For POV-

It’s been five years since the SC struck down the ban on gay sex
but to date, there are still restrictions when it comes to things
like inheritance, divorce, property ownership, and adoption. This
is not entirely fair because the couples are no different than
heterosexual couples who are just as capable of taking care of a
child or owning property and should not be judged based on
their sexuality.

One of the arguments made by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi

is that an individual has come forward saying that his
fundamental rights are being infringed upon and he has a right to
be heard. He then goes on to say that the lordship decides to
decide whether the grievances of the individual are right or
wrong. He also states how these couples want privacy in their
homes and do not want to face any stigma in public places. They
desire the same thing as anyone-marriage and family because it
highly respected in society.
When an individual steps out he or she is called queer or gay,
and people look at them as if they are any different from them.
This becomes a restriction to their rights under Article 21-
“Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”

For example, current Indian law only recognizes one member of

a same-sex couple as a parent, either because they gave birth to
their child or adopted them as a single parent.

Four couples are serving as plaintiffs in this case and one couple
Aditi Anand and Susan Dias do everything heterosexual couples
do but without any legal security, including raising their toddler.
“There is no reason our child should be denied the right to two
parents,” said Anand.

“We filed the petition because this issue impacts our lives in
a very tangible manner,” Dange says. “We are the most
important persons in each other’s lives and yet, we can’t call
each other ‘husband’ legally, loudly, and proudly in this
country.”
And isn’t this what everyone wishes for in a relationship- to
be able to call their loved ones theirs happily and not face
any criticism that might come their way?

India has made significant strides in advancing LGTBQ+

+ rights in recent years, with the Supreme Court
decriminalizing homosexuality in a landmark ruling in 2018.
But homosexuality and same-sex marriage remain taboo
topics in the socially conservative country led by Prime
Minister Narendra Modi, whose government has largely
opposed the issue—arguing that the matter should be decided
in parliament.

Against POV
The government rejects the argument that marriage equality is a
fundamental right, even writing in a recent filing that the
"petitions merely reflect urban elitist views" — which has
evoked strong reactions from the LGBTQ community and
beyond.
“ Living together as partners and having a sexual relationship
by same-sex individuals… is not comparable with the Indian
family unit concept of a husband, a wife, and children,” the
ministry argued.
This is unfair as stated above homosexual couples are more
than capable to take care of a child. But these social norms
about ‘oh this person’s daughter/son is like that’ and if it is
observed some parents are so narrow-minded that they end
up shunning their child and cannot wrap their head around it
as it seems like such an anomaly to them.

“A valid marriage is only between a biological male and a

biological woman,” said the government’s submission, stating
that any equality offered to same-sex couples went against
religious values and “seriously affects the interests of every
citizen”, arguing that such a decision should be made by
parliament, not the courts.
Firstly, the Parliament should not get to make these decisions as
it should be a decision taken collectively after consulting the
general public.
Secondly, there are no serious effects on the interests of citizens
and is hyperbolic. Everyone has their own interests and
preferences and ultimately it is their choice.

In other countries where same-sex marriage is legal

Before we even entered the 21st century, Denmark became the
first country in the world to offer official recognition to same-
sex couples, allowing them to register as domestic partners. The
recognition stopped short of calling such unions ‘marriages’. Six
gay couples were legally joined in ‘registered partnerships’ on
October 2, 1989, in a union that gave the most rights as married
heterosexuals, but not the right to adopt or obtain joint custody
of a child.

Austria: The Constitutional Court of Austria ruled on

December 4, 2017, that denial of marriage equality was
discriminatory, legalizing same-sex marriage. Marriage
equality took effect on January 1, 2019.

Taiwan: The Taiwan Constitutional Court ruled in 2017 that

marriage could not be restricted to opposite-sex couples and
gave parliament two years to enact legislation legalizing same-
sex marriage. Parliament passed legislation to legalize same-sex
marriage which went into effect on May 24, 2019, making
Taiwan the first country to enact marriage equality in Asia.
Ecuador: Legalized after Ecuador’s Constitutional Court found
on June 12, 2019, that its ban was unconstitutional, marriage
equality took effect in Ecuador on July 8, 2019.

Costa Rica: The Supreme Court of Costa Rica ruled in

November 2018 in support of the historic January 2018 advisory
opinion of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights that
marriage equality was consistent with Costa Rica's obligations
under the American Convention on Human Rights. The
Supreme Court set May 26, 2020, as the deadline for the
National Assembly to enact such legislation, but it did not meet
that deadline, and marriage equality came into effect on that
date.

Chile: On December 9, 2021, the president of Chile signed into

law a marriage equality bill that passed in the Senate on
December 7 and the lower house on Nov. 23. Same-sex civil
unions had been legal since 2015. Slovenia: On July 8th, 2022, a
ruling from the constitutional court of Slovenia decided that the
ban on same-sex marriages violated the constitution of Slovenia.

Switzerland: On December 16, 2020, the Swiss Parliament

overwhelmingly passed legislation extending marriage to same-
sex couples. A public referendum held in September 2021
overwhelmingly confirmed support for marriage equality by
64%.

Cuba: On September 25, 2022, in a national referendum,

Cubans approved a Family Code that included provisions
allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Andorra: On July 21, 2022, the unicameral legislature of
Andorra, the General Council, voted unanimously to amend the
country's civil union law to include marriage equality for same-
sex couples.

Slovenia: On July 8th, 2022, the Constitutional Court of

Slovenia ruled that the ban on same-sex marriages violated the
constitution of Slovenia and gave the Slovenian parliament 6
months to pass legislation accordingly, which it did on October
4. The ruling took effect immediately after the court decision.