Same Sex Marriage
Centre opposes same-sex marriage in Delhi HC, says not comparable with ‘Indian family unit concept’
The government also said that the marriage in India is not just a matter between two individuals but “a solemn institution” between "a biological man and a biological woman”. Capable for producing children.
The Centre told the Delhi High Court that living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same sex individuals is not comparable with the “Indian family unit concept
• Supreme Court’s Order: - Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court only decriminalised a particular human behaviour but neither intended to, nor did in fact, legitimise the human conduct in question.
• Societal Morality –Sanctity- पववत्रता of Marriage- The fundamental right under Article 21 is subject to the procedure established by law and it cannot be expanded to include the fundamental right for same sex marriage
SEEKING DISMISSAL of petitions praying for recognition of same-sex marriages under existing laws, the Centre Thursday told the Delhi High Court that a marriage in India necessarily depends upon “age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values”, and that in reading down the provision of Section 377 of the IPC covering homosexuality, the Supreme Court had only decriminalised “a particular human behaviour” but “neither intended to, nor did in fact, legitimise the human conduct in question”.
In response to three petitions seeking legalisation of same-sex marriages, the government said there exists a “legitimate State interest” in limiting the recognition of marriage to persons of opposite sex. The considerations of “societal morality” are relevant in considering the validity of a law and it is for the Legislature to enforce such societal morality and public acceptance based upon Indian ethos, a reply by the Ministry of Law and Justice says.
Living together as partners or in a relationship with a same-sex individual is “not comparable” with the “Indian family unit concept” of a husband, wife and children, the government said, arguing that the institution of marriage has a “sanctity”. “In our country, despite statutory recognition of the relationship of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, marriage necessarily depends upon age-old customs… societal values.”
The government also argued that while marriage happens between two private individuals, it “cannot be relegated” to merely a concept within the domain of privacy of an individual. On the other hand, the Centre told the Delhi High Court, marriage is recognised as public recognition of a relationship, with which several statutory rights and obligations are attached. It also said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Navtej Singh Johar case “does not extend the right to privacy to include a fundamental right in the nature of a right to marry by two individuals of same gender”.
But according to the previous cases
Important Supreme Court Decisions - Marriage as a Fundamental Right (Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. and others 2018)
➢ While referring to Article 16 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Puttaswamy case, the SC held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution.
➢ Article 16 (2) in the Indian constitution provides that there cannot be any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. So the no difference is equality in gender in a modern day.
Comments
Post a Comment