Same-sex marriage an urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos, Centre tells Supreme Court
Satya Prakash
New Delhi, April 17
Ahead of the Tuesday hearing before a Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of India.
In a fresh affidavit filed in the top court, it said extension of the concept of marriage beyond hetero-sexual union would amount to creating a new social institution.
Maintaining that it was essentially a legislative function which the courts should refrain from deciding, the Centre said Parliament was “presumed to know what is in the best interest of the people and this is doubly so in the case of Personal Law”.
Seeking dismissal of the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage, the Centre said, “The competent legislature will have to take into account broader views and voice of all rural, semi-rural and urban population, views of religious denominations keeping in mind personal laws as well as customs governing the field of marriage together with its inevitable cascading effects on several other statutes.”
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is scheduled to hear from April 18 petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages in India.
The other four judges on the Constitution Bench who will hear the contentious issue having wider long-term ramifications for society are Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli,
Describing it as a matter of “seminal” importance, a three-judge Bench led by the CJI had on March 13 referred the petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has moved the top court against legal recognition for same-sex marriage.
The national child rights body said adoption of children by same-sex couples should not be allowed. “Children raised by same-sex parents may have limited exposure to traditional gender role models which could impact their understanding of gender roles & identity. Exposure of these children would be limited & their overall personality growth would be affected,” the NCPCR submitted.
Interestingly, the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) has supported legalising same-sex marriages; adoption and succession rights for same-sex couples, saying “We cannot become frozen in time.”
The DCPCR – which has filed an intervention application in the matter – said multiple studies have demonstrated that same sex couples can be good parents.
“The central and state governments should take steps to create public awareness that same-sex family units are as ‘normal’ as heterosexual family units, and specifically that children belonging to the former are not ‘incomplete’ in any way,” the DCPCR said.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has also sought to intervene in the matter to oppose it. “This concept of same-sex marriage goes to attack the family system rather than making a family through this process,” Jamiat said in an intervention application filed in the top court.
However, the Centre maintained that same-sex marriage was not in conformity with societal morality and Indian ethos and would cause a “complete havoc” with the delicate balance of personal laws.
Despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country, it had said in an earlier affidavit.
However, the Centre had earlier said though it limits its recognition to heterosexual relationships, there may be other forms of unions or personal understandings of relationships between individuals in a society and these “are not unlawful”.
