Same-sex marriage plea: Only marriage between man, woman legitimate, says Centre in Delhi high court | Latest News India

New Delhi: Decriminalizing homosexuality has nothing to do with same-sex marriages and a legitimate marriage can happen solely between a organic man and a organic woman, the Union authorities informed the Delhi high court on Monday.

“The law is settled, either with or without the Navtej Johar case (a reference to the judgment decriminalizing homosexuality).The law is settled, personal laws are settled and marriage, which is contemplated, is between a biological man and biological woman,” solicitor normal Tushar Mehta informed a bench of chief justice DN Patel and justice Jyoti Singh.

The court was listening to a clutch of pleas in search of authorized recognition of similar intercourse marriages beneath the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act, together with these by Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar, Giti Thadani and G Oorvasi.

The bench was additionally listening to a plea by three individuals, Joydeep Sengupta, an OCI (abroad citizen of India), Russell Blaine Stephens, a US citizen, and Mario D’Penha, an Indian citizen and queer rights tutorial and activist pursuing a PhD at Rutgers University, for permitting a foreign-origin partner of an OCI cardholder apply for registration no matter gender or sexual orientation.

The petitioners, by means of advocate Karuna Nundy, stated all same-sex or queer marriages ought to be legally acknowledged in India beneath the relevant statutes, guidelines and insurance policies which can be in pressure.

The authorities is but to reply on this side, stated Nundy, showing for Sengupta and Stephens, whereas stating that the couple have been married in New York and the legal guidelines relevant in their case are the Citizenship Act, 1955, Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Section 7 A (1) (d) of the Citizenship Act doesn’t distinguish between heterosexual, same-sex or queer spouses, she stated. It offers that an individual married to an OCI, whose marriage is registered and subsisting for 2 years, ought to be declared eligible to use as a partner for an OCI card.

However, Mehta contended that “spouse” means husband and spouse; “marriage” is a time period related to heterosexual {couples}; and thus there isn’t any must file a particular reply with respect to the Citizenship Act.

“Everything would turn whether your lordship recognizes the submission…on the question of marriage and registration of marriage. Whether it has to be between a biological man and biological woman….Then the entire matter depends on that. There appears to be some miscommunication based on Navtej Johar, which merely decriminalizes 377….But it has nothing to do with marriage,” the central authorities’s lawyer stated.

Lawyer Saurabh Kirpal, showing for one of many petitioners, disagreed with Mehta’s submission of marriages between organic man and woman, and stated he would argue towards it.

The events stated they have been prepared with their pleadings and the matter could possibly be mounted for last listening to.

Following this, the court posted the matter for November 30 for a last listening to, whereas granting liberty to the events to file written submissions.

The first plea filed by Mitra, Shankar, Thadani and Oorvasi, by means of counsel Raghav Awasthi, had contended that the Hindu Marriage Act doesn’t distinguish between heterosexual and gay marriages if one have been to go by how it’s worded. The act clearly states marriage may be solemnised between “any two Hindus,” the petition argued.

The second petition was filed by two psychological well being professionals, Kavita Arora, 47, and Ankita Khanna, 36, in search of authorized recognition of their marriages beneath two totally different civil legal guidelines, the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act.

The third plea was filed by two males, Vaibhav Jain, an Indian citizen, and Parag Vijay Mehta, an OCI, who have been married in the United States, the place same-sex marriage is authorized, in 2017. They sought the identical aid as Arora and Khanna, stating that an Indian consulate refused to register their union this year beneath the Foreign Marriage Act.

Another set of petitioners, Sengupta, Stephens and D’Penha, contended that Sengupta and Stephens been in a loving relationship for almost 20 years and have been married in New York on August 6, 2012, which is recognised in the US, France and Canada.

Since Stephens wished to use for OCI standing beneath Section 7 A (1)(d) of the Citizenship Act in order to be entitled to a number of entry lifelong visa for visiting India, the couple approached D’Penha to file proper to data (RTI) functions to establish the authorized position on Stephen’s eligibility.

The three moved the high court after “the ministries kept transferring the RTIs back and forth” and no efficient response was obtained.

The Centre has opposed the pleas, saying a marriage in India may be recognised solely whether it is between a “biological man” and a “biological woman” able to producing youngsters, strongly opposing the validation of same-sex marital unions.

Back to top button