The center opposed same-sex marriage, stating that marriage in India is not just a union between two people, but an institution between a biological man and a biological woman.

A panel of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was informed by lawyers appearing on the matter that the Supreme Court is considering all petitions pending in different High Courts relating to the same issue. After that, the order was passed.

In light of the Supreme Court’s January 6 ruling, the High Court’s tribunal instructed its clerk to transmit the case file to the Supreme Court without delay.

The High Court has heard a number of petitions filed by several same-sex couples seeking proclamations granting marriage under the Special Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act.

Eight petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court on this issue.

The top court’s five-judge Constitution bench, in a path-breaking unanimous judgement delivered on September 6, 2018, had held that consensual sex among adult homosexuals or heterosexuals in private spaces is not a crime and struck down a part of a British-era penal law which had criminalised it on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.

Petitioner Abhijit Iyer Mitra and three others have contended that marriages between same-sex couples are not possible despite the apex court decriminalising consensual homosexual acts and therefore, they sought a declaration to recognise such marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act.

Another plea was filed by two women seeking to get married under the Special Marriage Act and challenging provisions of the statute to the extent it does not provide for same-sex marriages.

The other was filed by two men who got married in the U.S. but were denied registration of marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act.

The Centre has opposed same-sex marriage, saying marriage in India is not just a union of two individuals but an institution between a biological man and a woman, and judicial interference will cause “complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws”.

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *