New Delhi (IANS) | The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that while the Navtej Johar judgment had decriminalized consensual same-sex sex, so far same-sex relationships have been accepted and are playing a conversational role. The role of Parliament is really relevant here. Chief Justice D.Y. A five-judge bench headed by Chandrachud clarified that it has been limited to the Special Marriage Act by giving it a gender-neutral interpretation and evolving a civil union concept.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha – Noted: Ever since the Navtej Johar judgment, same-sex relationships have been accepted in universities. It further said that in this emerging consensus the court is playing an interactive role and we are aware of our limitations.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing some of the petitioners, said that law cannot remain static and should change with time. Stating that if rights were to be equal, his clients should seek recognition of their union in the same way that two other heterosexuals did.
He said that since it is based on the implementation of my fundamental rights, I can come to the court and the court need not wait for the legislature. He emphasized that once the state respects it, the stigma will go away.
Rohatgi was assisted by Senior Advocate Saurabh Kripal, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju and a team of Advocates from Karanjawala & Co.
The apex court said that since laws are evolving, it has to exercise its interpretive power in an incremental manner and asked the counsel for the petitioners to confine themselves to the incremental scope and then allow Parliament to respond to social developments. Said.
“We cannot deny the fact that Parliament is indeed relevant here,” the bench said.
The counsel opposing same-sex petitions cited difficulties for the Hindu Marriage Act and personal laws of various religious groups if the top court were to recognize same-sex marriages as valid. The bench said it can keep personal law out of the equation and lawyers can address the court on the Special Marriage Act.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that the socio-legal status of marriage cannot be rendered through judicial decisions and also cannot be done by the legislature, while asserting that acceptance is within the society. have to come from
He said that Hindu and Muslim and other communities would be affected and urged the court to hear the state governments in the matter. To this the bench said, we are not going into personal law. How can you ask us to fix it? We cannot be forced to listen to everything.
Mehta replied that it would be a ‘short circuit’ and the Center was in no mood to listen to all this.
The bench said that it is adopting a middle path and we do not need to decide everything to decide something. It clarified that some of the petitioners wanted the matter to be dealt with on a broader aspect, but not going into individual laws etc.
Referring to the court’s decision not to go into personal law, Mehta said earlier judgments opened this window and it will open another window in future.
The apex court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.
–IANS
