On Friday, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and Attorney General R Venkataramani on two PILs submitted by homosexual couples requesting the Special Marriage Act of 1954’s approval of same-sex marriages. The notices issued to the duo shall be returnable in four weeks, the Court noted.
The Court meanwhile also assigned itself several cases that were still pending before several High Courts, including those in Delhi and Kerala. The administration had also stated before the High Courts that the Supreme Court should take up the matter.
According to the reports, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli heard submissions of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi before issuing the notices on the pleas. Rohatgi appearing for the petitioners said that the matter is a ‘sequel’ to Navtej Singh Johar and the Puttaswamy verdict from 2018. “This is a living issue, not a property issue. The impact is on health and succession. We are only here talking about the Special Marriage Act,” he said.
The petitions sought direction in proposing that the Special Marriage Act recognize the union of two gay couples. One petition was filed by a gay couple from Hyderabad named Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang while another petition was filed by gay couple Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj. Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang have been in a relationship for 10 years and gay couple Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj have been together for 17 years.
The petitioners stated that the 1954 Act must provide same-sex couples with the similar protection it does for inter-caste and inter-religious couples who wish to get married. According to Rohatgi, the petition only sought to gender-neutralize the 1954 Act and did not address personal laws.
Parth and Uday further in their petition mentioned that the duo were raising two children but were not able to have a legal relationship of parent and child with both their children as they could not legally solemnize their marriage.
The petitioners contended that although Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act allows any two people to conduct a marriage ceremony, the accompanying restrictions in sub-Section (c) limit its application to only males and females. The plea stated that the non-recognition of same-sex weddings violates the right to equality and the right to life under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The LGBTQ+ community was urged by the Supreme Court to forgive history for its brutal persecution of homosexuality after it was decriminalized in 2018. A five-judge Constitution Bench had ruled unanimously that it was unconstitutional for Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to make private, consenting sex between adults of the same sex illegal. It had deemed Section 377’s 156-year ‘tyranny’ irrational, illogical, and clearly arbitrary. According to Section 377, homosexuality carries a 10-year jail sentence.
