At the outset, I endorse a dilemma frequently hinged with the Indian Constitution. Where do we position the constitutional discourse? Which strata of society is appropriately placed to nurture and cherish the blossoming of constitutional deliberations? Should we place it in the middle-class discourses, fighting their daily life to make a living for themselves, with a certain (or even more) amount of conservatism lurking in their domestic&nbsp;lives? Or should it be placed with the marginalised sections of the society, for whom even a two-time meal is a luxury?&nbsp;Or is there really an urban elite better positioned to comprehend and deliberate on the good or bad of society? Where do we really set the constitutional discourse? It is an important question to answer, as it is the outlook of the constitution which determines the destiny it will lead to.

In the Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India pertaining to same-sex marriage rights of the queer group, the honourable Supreme Court, at the outset, has done a remarkable job by dealing with a sensitive and intricate question about individual and collective rights, which to a large extent has been unanswered or even not mentioned in the Parliamentary discourses. This is the ethical role we imagined the court of law to play, to provide voices to the most marginalised and unheard voices which are not able to make a mark in the parliamentary chambers due to paucity of representation, either due to lack of sufficient numeric strength in the constituencies or the mere lack of apathy from the representative to their voices. However, in such matters of sensitivity, polyvocality of opinions (running into hundreds of pages) might not go well with many, having four opinions in a bench of five judges, does bring some elements of uncertainty, but it surely goes well with the argumentation(al) temperament of the constitution.

The credit must go to the Master of Roster, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, for the formulation of such a bench which was open to such vivid and diverse argumentation in the course of a hearing.

In the present case, an earnest effort has been made by the court to recognise as many rights as possible within their jurisdictional arena. Special mention needs to be given to Justice Chandrachud for his dissenting opinion, wherein the judge has attempted to give a marriage-like status to the civil union of two individuals.

Justice Chandrachud emphasises the functional/operational aspect of Article 19 (1) (c), (e), (a), 21 &amp; 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution. The freedom to settle and the freedom to create a union cannot fully be operationalised till the time there is ‘State &amp; Non-State Violence’ against individuals for their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Justice Chandrachud accepts the fact that marriage as an institution, and as recognised and regulated by the state, cannot be made a fundamental right. Neither will it be&nbsp;possible for the Supreme Court under the present legal matrix to recognise the marriage rights of individuals belonging to queer groups. In simple fact, the relevant law under which this right could have been considered was the Special Marriage Act, of 1954.

Justice Chandrachud emphasises that the provision of the Act is under-worded and thus indirectly discriminates against the queer group, building his arguments in line with Navtej Singh Johar (2018), Shakti Vahani (2018), Nalsa (2014) and K.S. Puttaswamy-I (2018). Emphasising more on individual liberty, dignity and the choices they make. However, he also agrees, that the Separation of Power being a part of the Indian Constitution, it is for the legislative deliberations to frame laws and policy on the matter. In an elaborative judgment, Justice Chandrachud has laid down an extensive direction for the Governments for safeguarding the civil union between individuals from queer groups, right from sensitisation of the people about LGBTQ rights, to ordering the criteria (such as joint bank account, ration card etc.) that the Committee should take into consideration while deliberating on the rights of the queer group. It can briefly be said that Justice Chandrachud has made an all-out attempt to provide marriage-like status to the civil union of the individuals from the queer group, even adoption rights.

The approach of Justice Chandrachud can be summarised as ‘rights from wrong approach’, an approach propounded by Allan Dershowitz. It is a commonly referred approach under Comparative Constitutional Law. It is believed that every right propounded is based on a past injustice. An example could be Germany. The modern German Constitution is pro-fundamental rights and human rights-centric. Germany saw a bad past of the holocaust, and it comes as a lesson for them to create a more stable society in line with human dignity. Throughout his opinion, Justice Chandrachud has emphasised the marginalisation faced by the queer group due to the insensitivity of the state and the non-state actors. Granting them equal status in the form of a civil union (and all the benefits attached to it) was a way to compensate them for the wrongs committed in the past.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-former-sc-judge-indu-malhotra-explains-why-legislation-is-quintessential-in-india-648108">Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India</a>

However, the majority opinion led by Justice Ravindra Bhat (concurred by Justice Hima Kohli and a separate concurring opinion of Justice PS Narashima) did not endorse the opinion of Justice Chandrachud and was practically correct. Knowing that the Separation of Power is a part of the Basic Structure, it is not prudent, legally or even ethically, for the Court of Law to create an institution parallel to marriage. Justice Bhat categorically emphasises that a right does not always create a positive obligation to the extent that the Court can lay down the law for it. Merely having a right to civil union does not obligate the state to create the socio-legal groundwork for facilitating the right. The Court surely cannot do this work, it is upon the executive deliberation to fixate an appropriate time. However, it is interesting to mention that the majority opinion does concur with the dissenting that the ‘Right to Marriage’ cannot be unqualified.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-courts-verdict-quashed-the-hopes-of-millions-say-lgbt-rights-activists-648059">Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists</a>

From a jurisprudential aspect, the judgement needs to be analysed from three perspectives: legal, moral and sociological (a reference to this can be found in the book of Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law: Chapter 39). The legal aspect deals with the legality of the judgement, on that front this judgment is completely sound, following the principles of the Indian Constitution to the point. However, on a moral and sociological front this judgement might be passing through grace marks. The moral aspect of the judgment raises questions regarding the ethical responsibility of the Court, as in, why does a Court exist?

Prof&nbsp;Rohit De (author of the book A People’s Constitution) says in a democratic country, the Court plays a major role in being a forum of representation for unheard voices. The whole concept of Judicial Review originated from this ethical necessity of an independent arbiter, who will arbitrate the rights of the individual against the State. On this front, the judgment has partially succeeded, as already mentioned earlier, at least the judgment brought the discourse regarding queer group and their rights to the forefront in the public domain, wherein it will be discussed in every household of the country. Though the judgment has not given the desired result, yet a discourse of the unheard will go a long way in creating a route. As Prof. Yogesh Pratap Singh (author of the book Judicial Dissent and Indian Supreme Court) says, possibly a dissenting opinion at present will gain traction in the near future and a jurisprudence for tomorrow.

On the sociological aspect, the question is whether the judgement is well-accepted or not, and when we talk about acceptance of judgement, we do not refer to the mass population of India giving their acceptance to the judgement. We refer to the stakeholders of judgement (the mention of such arguments on legal, moral and political legitimacy can be seen in the Book Democracy and Constitutionalism in India), the stakeholders under this judgement will be the queer community and the legal diaspora. There are mixed reviews which have come for the judgement, most of the members of queer groups are disheartened. However, it is interesting to see that this has been portrayed as a failure of the Court to not recognise marital rights, several of the prime legal websites in their snippets have lambasted the judiciary for their failure to uphold the marital rights of queer groups. But that is not the truth, the judiciary has done a remarkable job to the extent it was legally possible. The sociological acceptance of the judgement depends on the public perception created by the media channels, and legal news platforms, it seems they have failed to portray the real picture.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

At the outset, I endorse a dilemma frequently hinged with the Indian Constitution. Where do we position the constitutional discourse? Which strata of society is appropriately placed to nurture and cherish the blossoming of constitutional deliberations?

At the outset, I endorse a dilemma frequently hinged with the Indian Constitution. Where do we position the constitutional discourse? Which strata of society is appropriately placed to nurture and cherish the blossoming of constitutional deliberations? Should we place it in the middle-class discourses, fighting their daily life to make a living for themselves, with a certain (or even more) amount of conservatism lurking in their domestic lives? Or should it be placed with the marginalised sections of the society, for whom even a two-time meal is a luxury? Or is there really an urban elite better positioned to comprehend and deliberate on the good or bad of society? Where do we really set the constitutional discourse? It is an important question to answer, as it is the outlook of the constitution which determines the destiny it will lead to. In the Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India pertaining to same-sex marriage rights of the queer group, the honourable Supreme Court, at the outset, has done a remarkable job by dealing with a sensitive and intricate question about individual and collective rights, which to a large extent has been unanswered or even not mentioned in the Parliamentary discourses. This is the ethical role we imagined the court of law to play, to provide voices to the most marginalised and unheard voices which are not able to make a mark in the parliamentary chambers due to paucity of representation, either due to lack of sufficient numeric strength in the constituencies or the mere lack of apathy from the representative to their voices. However, in such matters of sensitivity, polyvocality of opinions (running into hundreds of pages) might not go well with many, having four opinions in a bench of five judges, does bring some elements of uncertainty, but it surely goes well with the argumentation(al) temperament of the constitution. The credit must go to the Master of Roster, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, for the formulation of such a bench which was open to such vivid and diverse argumentation in the course of a hearing. In the present case, an earnest effort has been made by the court to recognise as many rights as possible within their jurisdictional arena. Special mention needs to be given to Justice Chandrachud for his dissenting opinion, wherein the judge has attempted to give a marriage-like status to the civil union of two individuals. Justice Chandrachud emphasises the functional/operational aspect of Article 19 (1) (c), (e), (a), 21 & 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution. The freedom to settle and the freedom to create a union cannot fully be operationalised till the time there is ‘State & Non-State Violence’ against individuals for their sexual orientation and gender identity. Justice Chandrachud accepts the fact that marriage as an institution, and as recognised and regulated by the state, cannot be made a fundamental right. Neither will it be possible for the Supreme Court under the present legal matrix to recognise the marriage rights of individuals belonging to queer groups. In simple fact, the relevant law under which this right could have been considered was the Special Marriage Act, of 1954. Justice Chandrachud emphasises that the provision of the Act is under-worded and thus indirectly discriminates against the queer group, building his arguments in line with Navtej Singh Johar (2018), Shakti Vahani (2018), Nalsa (2014) and K.S. Puttaswamy-I (2018). Emphasising more on individual liberty, dignity and the choices they make. However, he also agrees, that the Separation of Power being a part of the Indian Constitution, it is for the legislative deliberations to frame laws and policy on the matter. In an elaborative judgment, Justice Chandrachud has laid down an extensive direction for the Governments for safeguarding the civil union between individuals from queer groups, right from sensitisation of the people about LGBTQ rights, to ordering the criteria (such as joint bank account, ration card etc.) that the Committee should take into consideration while deliberating on the rights of the queer group. It can briefly be said that Justice Chandrachud has made an all-out attempt to provide marriage-like status to the civil union of the individuals from the queer group, even adoption rights. The approach of Justice Chandrachud can be summarised as ‘rights from wrong approach’, an approach propounded by Allan Dershowitz. It is a commonly referred approach under Comparative Constitutional Law. It is believed that every right propounded is based on a past injustice. An example could be Germany. The modern German Constitution is pro-fundamental rights and human rights-centric. Germany saw a bad past of the holocaust, and it comes as a lesson for them to create a more stable society in line with human dignity. Throughout his opinion, Justice Chandrachud has emphasised the marginalisation faced by the queer group due to the insensitivity of the state and the non-state actors. Granting them equal status in the form of a civil union (and all the benefits attached to it) was a way to compensate them for the wrongs committed in the past. Also read | Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India However, the majority opinion led by Justice Ravindra Bhat (concurred by Justice Hima Kohli and a separate concurring opinion of Justice PS Narashima) did not endorse the opinion of Justice Chandrachud and was practically correct. Knowing that the Separation of Power is a part of the Basic Structure, it is not prudent, legally or even ethically, for the Court of Law to create an institution parallel to marriage. Justice Bhat categorically emphasises that a right does not always create a positive obligation to the extent that the Court can lay down the law for it. Merely having a right to civil union does not obligate the state to create the socio-legal groundwork for facilitating the right. The Court surely cannot do this work, it is upon the executive deliberation to fixate an appropriate time. However, it is interesting to mention that the majority opinion does concur with the dissenting that the ‘Right to Marriage’ cannot be unqualified. Also read | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists From a jurisprudential aspect, the judgement needs to be analysed from three perspectives: legal, moral and sociological (a reference to this can be found in the book of Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law: Chapter 39). The legal aspect deals with the legality of the judgement, on that front this judgment is completely sound, following the principles of the Indian Constitution to the point. However, on a moral and sociological front this judgement might be passing through grace marks. The moral aspect of the judgment raises questions regarding the ethical responsibility of the Court, as in, why does a Court exist? Prof Rohit De (author of the book A People’s Constitution) says in a democratic country, the Court plays a major role in being a forum of representation for unheard voices. The whole concept of Judicial Review originated from this ethical necessity of an independent arbiter, who will arbitrate the rights of the individual against the State. On this front, the judgment has partially succeeded, as already mentioned earlier, at least the judgment brought the discourse regarding queer group and their rights to the forefront in the public domain, wherein it will be discussed in every household of the country. Though the judgment has not given the desired result, yet a discourse of the unheard will go a long way in creating a route. As Prof. Yogesh Pratap Singh (author of the book Judicial Dissent and Indian Supreme Court) says, possibly a dissenting opinion at present will gain traction in the near future and a jurisprudence for tomorrow. On the sociological aspect, the question is whether the judgement is well-accepted or not, and when we talk about acceptance of judgement, we do not refer to the mass population of India giving their acceptance to the judgement. We refer to the stakeholders of judgement (the mention of such arguments on legal, moral and political legitimacy can be seen in the Book Democracy and Constitutionalism in India), the stakeholders under this judgement will be the queer community and the legal diaspora. There are mixed reviews which have come for the judgement, most of the members of queer groups are disheartened. However, it is interesting to see that this has been portrayed as a failure of the Court to not recognise marital rights, several of the prime legal websites in their snippets have lambasted the judiciary for their failure to uphold the marital rights of queer groups. But that is not the truth, the judiciary has done a remarkable job to the extent it was legally possible. The sociological acceptance of the judgement depends on the public perception created by the media channels, and legal news platforms, it seems they have failed to portray the real picture. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

To marry or not to marry: An analysis of Indian Supreme Court's same-sex marriage judgment

'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. The results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage".

<h2>India supports same-sex marriage</h2>

Of the 53 per cent in support of same-sex marriage, 28 per cent expressed strong support, while 25 per cent showed moderate support for the idea.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/he-said-she-said-outlandish-arguments-groundbreaking-statements-from-indias-same-sex-marriage-hearing-586946">'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage hearing</a>

On the other hand, 43 per cent of Indian adults said they 'totally oppose' same-sex marriages, with 31&nbsp;per cent strongly opposing and 12 per cent moderately opposing such unions.

<h2>The Pew Research Center survey&nbsp;</h2>

Pew Research Center's latest survey was conducted in 24 countries across the world. The survey conducted between February 20 and May 22 evaluated how people across the globe viewed same-sex marriage.

It came up with results that&nbsp;can be seen as encouraging for same-sex couples and their advocates in India.

<h2>India and same-sex marriages</h2>

Currently, the issue of the legalisation of same-sex marriages is being deliberated in the Indian Supreme Court; a five-judge bench is hearing the case.&nbsp;However, the Union government has voiced opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriages, citing cultural and traditional norms.&nbsp;

While homosexuality is legal in India, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is still considered illegal.

As per the Wire, the survey results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage."&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/child-rights-activist-says-same-sex-marriage-denies-kids-one-parents-love-585347">Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love</a>

Reportedly, the BCI had based its claim on its own survey but had not released any detailed methodology, sample size, or other data points.&nbsp;

The BCI even passed a resolution opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage and called on the Supreme Court to refrain from adjudicating on the issue, stating that it should be left to the legislative process.

<h2>Global opinion on same-sex marriage</h2>

Globally, the survey revealed that support for legalising same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, with 92 per cent of adults in favour, and lowest in Nigeria, with only two&nbsp;per cent supporting it.&nbsp;

The survey also examined attitudes across various demographic factors such as age, gender, political ideology, and religious beliefs.

In Western Europe, a strong majority of adults in countries such as Sweden (92 per cent), the Netherlands (89 per cent), Spain (87 per cent), France (82 per cent), and Germany (80 per cent) support same-sex marriage. These countries have already legalised such unions.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<img alt="A map and bar chart that shows same-sex marriage attitudes and legality across 24 countries." src="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SR_2023.06.14_LGBTQ.global_2.png?w=640" />

Acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world. Image courtesy: Pew Research Centre.

However, in Poland, only 41 per cent of adults support same-sex marriages, while in Hungary, the figure is even lower at 31 per cent. Same-sex marriages are not legal in these countries, and LGBTQ+ rights activists often face state repression.

In North America, 79 per cent of Canadians support same-sex marriage, while the figures stand at 63 per cent in both the United States and Mexico. All three countries have legalised same-sex marriage. In South America, 67 per cent of Argentinians and 52 per cent of Brazilians are in favour. These countries have also legalised same-sex marriage.

In the Asia-Pacific region, approximately three-quarters of adults in Australia (75 per cent) and Japan (74 per cent) support legalising same-sex marriage. While Australia has already legalised it, Japan has yet to do so.&nbsp;

South Korea is currently debating the issue, and 40 per cent of South Koreans support legalising same-sex marriage, while 59 per cent oppose it. Indonesians showed strong opposition, with only five&nbsp;per cent supporting same-sex marriage.

The survey also found that in 12 countries, adults under 40 are more likely than older individuals to support same-sex marriage. Similarly, women in 14 countries expressed more support for legalising same-sex marriage compared to men. In 17 of the surveyed countries, individuals with higher levels of formal education were more likely to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. The results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage". India supports same-sex marriage Of the 53 per cent in support of same-sex marriage, 28 per cent expressed strong support, while 25 per cent showed moderate support for the idea. Also read | 'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage hearing On the other hand, 43 per cent of Indian adults said they 'totally oppose' same-sex marriages, with 31 per cent strongly opposing and 12 per cent moderately opposing such unions. The Pew Research Center survey Pew Research Center's latest survey was conducted in 24 countries across the world. The survey conducted between February 20 and May 22 evaluated how people across the globe viewed same-sex marriage. It came up with results that can be seen as encouraging for same-sex couples and their advocates in India. India and same-sex marriages Currently, the issue of the legalisation of same-sex marriages is being deliberated in the Indian Supreme Court; a five-judge bench is hearing the case. However, the Union government has voiced opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriages, citing cultural and traditional norms. While homosexuality is legal in India, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is still considered illegal. As per the Wire, the survey results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage." Also read | Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love Reportedly, the BCI had based its claim on its own survey but had not released any detailed methodology, sample size, or other data points. The BCI even passed a resolution opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage and called on the Supreme Court to refrain from adjudicating on the issue, stating that it should be left to the legislative process. Global opinion on same-sex marriage Globally, the survey revealed that support for legalising same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, with 92 per cent of adults in favour, and lowest in Nigeria, with only two per cent supporting it. The survey also examined attitudes across various demographic factors such as age, gender, political ideology, and religious beliefs. In Western Europe, a strong majority of adults in countries such as Sweden (92 per cent), the Netherlands (89 per cent), Spain (87 per cent), France (82 per cent), and Germany (80 per cent) support same-sex marriage. These countries have already legalised such unions. Acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world. Image courtesy: Pew Research Centre. However, in Poland, only 41 per cent of adults support same-sex marriages, while in Hungary, the figure is even lower at 31 per cent. Same-sex marriages are not legal in these countries, and LGBTQ+ rights activists often face state repression. In North America, 79 per cent of Canadians support same-sex marriage, while the figures stand at 63 per cent in both the United States and Mexico. All three countries have legalised same-sex marriage. In South America, 67 per cent of Argentinians and 52 per cent of Brazilians are in favour. These countries have also legalised same-sex marriage. In the Asia-Pacific region, approximately three-quarters of adults in Australia (75 per cent) and Japan (74 per cent) support legalising same-sex marriage. While Australia has already legalised it, Japan has yet to do so. South Korea is currently debating the issue, and 40 per cent of South Koreans support legalising same-sex marriage, while 59 per cent oppose it. Indonesians showed strong opposition, with only five per cent supporting same-sex marriage. The survey also found that in 12 countries, adults under 40 are more likely than older individuals to support same-sex marriage. Similarly, women in 14 countries expressed more support for legalising same-sex marriage compared to men. In 17 of the surveyed countries, individuals with higher levels of formal education were more likely to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Global survey finds broad acceptance of same-sex marriage in India

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent."

Talking to IANS, Kumar V Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) told IANS that "It is natural for any child to have a natural father and mother," and that with the proposed law India is "heading to the creation of a fatherless or motherless society."

He said that in a same-sex marriage, one person will be 'acting' as though they are "a father or mother respectively," but that in fact a child "raised by a same-sex couple is deprived of at least one parent."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-has-no-data-to-prove-same-sex-marriage-is-an-urban-elitist-concept-says-chief-justice-of-india-584141">Centre has no data to prove same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept, says Chief Justice of India</a>

He labelled&nbsp;this "a human rights violation that the same-sex marriage movement will never address."

As per Jahgirdar, "this will have a devastating effect on the psychology of the child and is also a violation of child rights as per a UN convention to have two different genders as parents. It is set to become a fashion to speak about LGBTQ rights and nobody is bothered about child rights. The child rights and same sex rights can't go in the same boat."

"I hope the apex court takes this seriously and does not hamper child fundamental rights," he added.

The child rights activist also predicted that "children in same-sex marriage may feel a stigma that may end in drugs or school dropouts or land up in jail as a teenager."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-why-same-sex-couples-in-india-are-seeking-conjugal-rights-when-homosexuality-is-decriminalised-583772">Explained: Why same-sex couples in India are seeking conjugal rights when homosexuality is decriminalised</a>

He further said&nbsp;that if same-sex marriages are awarded a legal status, the "law will be unconstitutional and is not only against Indian social and cultural values but also in violation of basic human rights."

Jahgirdar claimed&nbsp;that the legalisation of same-sex marriages will further add confusion to the Domestic Violence Act that "is meant to protect women against men."

He also said that if the law is passed, rules regarding the custody of the child post-separation or divorce of the parents must be laid out. The custody of children and shared parenting in cases of separation must be ensured, he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent.

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent." Talking to IANS, Kumar V Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) told IANS that "It is natural for any child to have a natural father and mother," and that with the proposed law India is "heading to the creation of a fatherless or motherless society." He said that in a same-sex marriage, one person will be 'acting' as though they are "a father or mother respectively," but that in fact a child "raised by a same-sex couple is deprived of at least one parent." Also read | Centre has no data to prove same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept, says Chief Justice of India He labelled this "a human rights violation that the same-sex marriage movement will never address." As per Jahgirdar, "this will have a devastating effect on the psychology of the child and is also a violation of child rights as per a UN convention to have two different genders as parents. It is set to become a fashion to speak about LGBTQ rights and nobody is bothered about child rights. The child rights and same sex rights can't go in the same boat." "I hope the apex court takes this seriously and does not hamper child fundamental rights," he added. The child rights activist also predicted that "children in same-sex marriage may feel a stigma that may end in drugs or school dropouts or land up in jail as a teenager." Also read | Explained: Why same-sex couples in India are seeking conjugal rights when homosexuality is decriminalised He further said that if same-sex marriages are awarded a legal status, the "law will be unconstitutional and is not only against Indian social and cultural values but also in violation of basic human rights." Jahgirdar claimed that the legalisation of same-sex marriages will further add confusion to the Domestic Violence Act that "is meant to protect women against men." He also said that if the law is passed, rules regarding the custody of the child post-separation or divorce of the parents must be laid out. The custody of children and shared parenting in cases of separation must be ensured, he added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love

The Indian Supreme Court, on Tuesday (April 18) heard arguments on a batch of 15 pleas which have sought the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country. This comes a day after the Indian government reiterated its opposition to the motion calling the petitions an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”. &nbsp;

The five-judge bench&nbsp;

The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud also comprised Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha. During the hearing, the CJI said there is no such thing as an “absolute” concept of biological man and woman adding that “it’s not just a question of what your genitals are.”

The CJI has called the marriage issue one of “seminal importance”. The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-hearing-on-same-sex-marriage-live-indias-apex-court-to-hear-arguements-today-583596">Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage&nbsp;| India's apex court to hear arguments today</a>

However, the CJI had earlier said that the mandatory 30-day notice of a couple’s intention to marry under the previously mentioned act is “unconstitutional”. He stated, “Even in a heterosexual marriage, that you have to give notice and have people object to whether there should be a marriage or not is unconstitutional.”

Petitioners’ argument&nbsp;

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who presented the arguments from the petitioners said that those in same-sex relationships should also have equal rights similar to their heterosexual brethren.&nbsp;

Subsequently, referring to the 2018 ruling which struck down section 377 and decriminalised homosexuality, Rohtagi argued that the LGBTQ should also have the right to dignity and to the institution of marriage and family which is available to others.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-sc-directs-petitions-seeking-same-sex-marriage-legalisation-to-constitutional-bench-571529">Indian SC directs petitions seeking same-sex marriage legalisation to constitutional bench</a>

He has also sought the provisions under the Special Marriage Act to read marriage between “spouse” instead of “man and woman”. Additionally, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also arguing for the petitioners said that it is not only “a question of dignity but a bouquet of rights that LGBTQ people are being denied…like life insurance or medical insurance.”&nbsp;

This comes as the CJI asked the lawyers to steer clear of the personal laws as the court would focus on if the right can be conferred under The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 as they have ‘broadly understood matter’.&nbsp;

The Indian government’s stance

Prior to the hearing, the government, on Monday, said that a court order recognising same-sex marriages would be virtually rewriting an entire branch of law. It has also argued how the court must refrain from passing such “omnibus orders”. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, reiterates its stance that the judiciary has no authority on the matter.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/urban-elite-concept-indian-govt-opposes-same-sex-marriage-as-sc-to-begin-hearing-583259">‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing</a>

“This would be better if gone into by the parliament. The parliament has eminent parliamentarians. Parliamentary committees are not acting in the way we see parliament function. Committees have all parties as members,” said Mehta.&nbsp;

The CJI’s remarks about the notion of a biological woman or man not being absolute were also in response to Mehta’s statement when he said, “Societal acceptance of any relationship is never dependent on either the legislation or judgement. The legislative intent of the legislature throughout has been a relationship between a biological man and a biological female.”

The next hearing

The apex court will continue to hear petitioners on Wednesday and Thursday while the Indian government will present their arguments next week.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Tuesday (April 18) heard arguments on a batch of 15 pleas which have sought the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country. This comes a day after the Indian government reiterated its opposition to the motion calling the petitions an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Tuesday (April 18) heard arguments on a batch of 15 pleas which have sought the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country. This comes a day after the Indian government reiterated its opposition to the motion calling the petitions an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”. The five-judge bench The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud also comprised Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha. During the hearing, the CJI said there is no such thing as an “absolute” concept of biological man and woman adding that “it’s not just a question of what your genitals are.” The CJI has called the marriage issue one of “seminal importance”. The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act. ALSO READ | Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage | India's apex court to hear arguments today However, the CJI had earlier said that the mandatory 30-day notice of a couple’s intention to marry under the previously mentioned act is “unconstitutional”. He stated, “Even in a heterosexual marriage, that you have to give notice and have people object to whether there should be a marriage or not is unconstitutional.” Petitioners’ argument Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who presented the arguments from the petitioners said that those in same-sex relationships should also have equal rights similar to their heterosexual brethren. Subsequently, referring to the 2018 ruling which struck down section 377 and decriminalised homosexuality, Rohtagi argued that the LGBTQ should also have the right to dignity and to the institution of marriage and family which is available to others. ALSO READ | Indian SC directs petitions seeking same-sex marriage legalisation to constitutional bench He has also sought the provisions under the Special Marriage Act to read marriage between “spouse” instead of “man and woman”. Additionally, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also arguing for the petitioners said that it is not only “a question of dignity but a bouquet of rights that LGBTQ people are being denied…like life insurance or medical insurance.” This comes as the CJI asked the lawyers to steer clear of the personal laws as the court would focus on if the right can be conferred under The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 as they have ‘broadly understood matter’. The Indian government’s stance Prior to the hearing, the government, on Monday, said that a court order recognising same-sex marriages would be virtually rewriting an entire branch of law. It has also argued how the court must refrain from passing such “omnibus orders”. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, reiterates its stance that the judiciary has no authority on the matter. ALSO READ | ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing “This would be better if gone into by the parliament. The parliament has eminent parliamentarians. Parliamentary committees are not acting in the way we see parliament function. Committees have all parties as members,” said Mehta. The CJI’s remarks about the notion of a biological woman or man not being absolute were also in response to Mehta’s statement when he said, “Societal acceptance of any relationship is never dependent on either the legislation or judgement. The legislative intent of the legislature throughout has been a relationship between a biological man and a biological female.” The next hearing The apex court will continue to hear petitioners on Wednesday and Thursday while the Indian government will present their arguments next week. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India’s apex court heard arguments on same-sex marriage legalisation. Here’s what happened

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary.

Calling the petitions seeking the right to same-sex marriage an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”, the submission filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday stated that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function and that the courts should refrain from deciding.

“A decision by the court in recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. The court must refrain from passing such omnibus orders. Proper authority for the same is appropriate legislature...Given the fundamental social origin of these laws, any change in order to be legitimate would have to come from the bottom up and through legislation...a change cannot be compelled by judicial fiat and the best judge of the pace of change is the legislature itself,” stated the application.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has taken note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,&nbsp;who mentioned the plea to decide a preliminary issue.

"Yes, it will be listed tomorrow (April 18)," the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said.

The BJP-led government questioned the maintainability of the petitions, saying that concept of same-sex marriages, if allowed, will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.

The constitutional bench, which also comprises S K Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, P S Narasimha and Hima Kohli, will hear the petitions on Tuesday which were referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on March 13 by the CJI-led bench, saying it is a very seminal issue.

The hearing and the outcome are expected to have significant ramifications in India where the opinions of common people and political parties have been divergent.

The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre's response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary.

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary. Calling the petitions seeking the right to same-sex marriage an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”, the submission filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday stated that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function and that the courts should refrain from deciding. “A decision by the court in recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. The court must refrain from passing such omnibus orders. Proper authority for the same is appropriate legislature...Given the fundamental social origin of these laws, any change in order to be legitimate would have to come from the bottom up and through legislation...a change cannot be compelled by judicial fiat and the best judge of the pace of change is the legislature itself,” stated the application. A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has taken note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the plea to decide a preliminary issue. "Yes, it will be listed tomorrow (April 18)," the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said. The BJP-led government questioned the maintainability of the petitions, saying that concept of same-sex marriages, if allowed, will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values. The constitutional bench, which also comprises S K Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, P S Narasimha and Hima Kohli, will hear the petitions on Tuesday which were referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on March 13 by the CJI-led bench, saying it is a very seminal issue. The hearing and the outcome are expected to have significant ramifications in India where the opinions of common people and political parties have been divergent. The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre's response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing

As India's top court readies to hear a batch of pleas seeking validation for same-sex marriages, the nation's central government has submitted an affidavit opposing the step. The centre in its affidavit reportedly told the Supreme Court (SC) that same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct classes which cannot be treated identically.&nbsp;

On Monday (March 13th) the court was scheduled to hear pleas seeking the validation, and this submission comes just a day ahead.&nbsp;A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala will be presiding over the hearing.

LiveLaw reports that the centre in its affidavit stated that marriage between individuals of opposite sexes is "socially, culturally and legally ingrained into the very idea and concept of marriage and ought not to be disturbed or diluted by judicial interpretation."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/strangers-in-the-eyes-of-law-wion-speaks-with-hyderabad-gay-couple-569191">'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage</a>

"Living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same-sex individuals is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a 'husband', a biological woman as a 'wife' and the children born out of the union between the two-who are reared by the biological man as father and the biological&nbsp;woman&nbsp;as&nbsp;mother," it said.

In India, homosexual relationships were decriminalised on 6th September 2018.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-top-court-steps-closer-to-decide-legal-status-of-same-sex-couples-550037">India's top court steps closer to decide legal status of same-sex couples</a>

Pushing for the recognition of only heterosexual marriages, it said that such marriages are "the norm throughout history" and claimed that they are "foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State."

It also claimed that giving legal recognition to same-sex marriages will give rise to complications in matters related to adoption, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, etc.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

As India's top court readies to hear a batch of pleas seeking validation for same-sex marriages, the nation's central government has submitted an affidavit opposing the step.

As India's top court readies to hear a batch of pleas seeking validation for same-sex marriages, the nation's central government has submitted an affidavit opposing the step. The centre in its affidavit reportedly told the Supreme Court (SC) that same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct classes which cannot be treated identically. On Monday (March 13th) the court was scheduled to hear pleas seeking the validation, and this submission comes just a day ahead. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala will be presiding over the hearing. LiveLaw reports that the centre in its affidavit stated that marriage between individuals of opposite sexes is "socially, culturally and legally ingrained into the very idea and concept of marriage and ought not to be disturbed or diluted by judicial interpretation." Also read | 'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage "Living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same-sex individuals is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a 'husband', a biological woman as a 'wife' and the children born out of the union between the two-who are reared by the biological man as father and the biological woman as mother," it said. In India, homosexual relationships were decriminalised on 6th September 2018. Also read | India's top court steps closer to decide legal status of same-sex couples Pushing for the recognition of only heterosexual marriages, it said that such marriages are "the norm throughout history" and claimed that they are "foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State." It also claimed that giving legal recognition to same-sex marriages will give rise to complications in matters related to adoption, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, etc. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Centre opposes same-sex marriages, says those between a man and a woman 'the norm throughout history'