“People Belonging To The Same Sex Can Be In “stable marriage-like relationships.” - SC On Day 3 Hearing Of Same-Sex Marriage Matter

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India discussed the feedback it received on the questions and comments raised during the hearing of the same-sex marriage case. The Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha, and Hima Kohli, expressed disappointment that answers to its queries were being delivered on social media.

In response to a submission by counsel that the Central Adoption Regulation Authority Rules do not permit adoption by a single parent or bachelor, the CJI remarked that even in heterosexual relationships, there can be cases of domestic violence and the impact on children could be severe. He expressed his dismay that answers to what was being said in court were being delivered through social media trolls.

CJI Chandrachud had earlier commented that gender identity cannot be restricted to any absolute definition or notion, and this remark has attracted intense scrutiny online.

The CJI said that by decriminalizing homosexuality, the SC not only recognized same-gender relationships physically but also emotionally. He said, “The moment we have said that it’s no longer an offense under Section 377, therefore we necessarily contemplate that you could have stable marriage-like relationships between two persons who do not treat these as chance encounters but something more than that, which is not just physical relations but something more of a stable emotional relationship, which is an incident of our constitutional interpretation."

The CJI also said that the court has already reached the intermediate stage, which contemplates that people belonging to the same sex can be in “stable marriage-like relationships."

While the case was being heard, the Chief Justice of India noted that the court could not exceed its jurisdiction by modifying statutes in the legislative domain. However, he acknowledged that the decriminalization of Section 377 was aimed at allowing stable and emotional relationships for same-sex couples.

Justice Kaul raised concerns about future eventualities arising from the recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, including those related to rape within such relationships and during the marriage.

In the same-sex marriage case, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for a petitioner, emphasized the importance of protecting same-sex couples from their families. Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan, appearing for another petitioner, argued that procreation should not be used as a justification to deny the right to marriage for same-sex couples. He further stated that the minimum age of marriage for the third gender should be 18 and that states must create laws that comply with any declared fundamental right to marry.

The hearing will resume on Monday, 24^th April, and the petitioners will complete their submissions.