By Express News Service

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will deliver on Tuesday its judgement on pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India.

On May 11, after an extensive 10-day-long hearing, a Constitution bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha had reserved their verdict.

The top court’s judgement will decide as to whether the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ can be replaced with the word person and the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ can be replaced with the word ‘spouse’ in the Special Marriage Act (SMA). 

Notably on the first day of the hearing, the bench had defined the contours of the pleas and had said that it would not go into personal laws governing marriage and instead will look into the issue of registration of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

Another significant development which took place during the hearing was willingness to consider if certain rights could be conferred upon same-sex couples short of legal recognition as marriage.

Meanwhile, the petitioners in their rejoinder submission on Thursday last week submitted that they were not seeking the interpretation of every gendered word in the SMA in a gender-neutral way. They said they were only assailing those parts of the SMA that require a Constitution-compliant reading on grounds of discrimination.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the state by excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage was declaring that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples.

“When it comes to the use of gendered terms to specifically address gendered imbalances of power and therefore achieve substantive equality, limiting such terms to their gendered, heterosexual context is what is consistent with the law’s underlying thrust. Civil union is not a solution, not an equal alternative. Civil unions do not address the constitutional anomaly presented by exclusion of non-heterosexual couples from the institution of marriage,” Singhvi said.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran said that lack of recognition leads to the denial of equal protection under the law.

Arguments were also made by Senior advocates KV Vishwanathan, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, Maneka Guruswamy, and advocates Karuna Nundy, and Vrinda Grover.

The Centre’s stand has been that the issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriages through the SMA should be left for the Parliament to decide since it is the appropriate forum to conceive several situations which would arise from recognising the same “legally.”

Stressing on the fact that all the civil as well as criminal laws define “man and woman in conventional sense”, the Centre had submitted that the right to marry does not include the right to compel the state to create a new definition of ‘marriage’.

Underlining the real question before the court which was “who would take a call on what constitutes a valid marriage and between whom”, it was also contended that the Parliament was aware of the concept of “gays” and “lesbians” even while the Special Marriage Act was promulgated in 1954 but there was a “conscious omission” to not recognise same sex marriages.

Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

<br /> NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will deliver on Tuesday its judgement on pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India.</p> <p>On May 11, after an extensive 10-day-long hearing, a Constitution bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha had reserved their verdict.</p> <p>The top court’s judgement will decide as to whether the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ can be replaced with the word person and the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ can be replaced with the word ‘spouse’ in the Special Marriage Act (SMA). googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });</p> <p>Notably on the first day of the hearing, the bench had defined the contours of the pleas and had said that it would not go into personal laws governing marriage and instead will look into the issue of registration of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act.</p> <p>Another significant development which took place during the hearing was willingness to consider if certain rights could be conferred upon same-sex couples short of legal recognition as marriage.</p> <p>Meanwhile, the petitioners in their rejoinder submission on Thursday last week submitted that they were not seeking the interpretation of every gendered word in the SMA in a gender-neutral way. They said they were only assailing those parts of the SMA that require a Constitution-compliant reading on grounds of discrimination.</p> <p>Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the state by excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage was declaring that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples.</p> <p>“When it comes to the use of gendered terms to specifically address gendered imbalances of power and therefore achieve substantive equality, limiting such terms to their gendered, heterosexual context is what is consistent with the law’s underlying thrust. Civil union is not a solution, not an equal alternative. Civil unions do not address the constitutional anomaly presented by exclusion of non-heterosexual couples from the institution of marriage,” Singhvi said.</p> <p>Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran said that lack of recognition leads to the denial of equal protection under the law.</p> <p>Arguments were also made by Senior advocates KV Vishwanathan, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, Maneka Guruswamy, and advocates Karuna Nundy, and Vrinda Grover.</p> <p>The Centre’s stand has been that the issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriages through the SMA should be left for the Parliament to decide since it is the appropriate forum to conceive several situations which would arise from recognising the same “legally.”</p> <p>Stressing on the fact that all the civil as well as criminal laws define “man and woman in conventional sense”, the Centre had submitted that the right to marry does not include the right to compel the state to create a new definition of ‘marriage’.</p> <p>Underlining the real question before the court which was “who would take a call on what constitutes a valid marriage and between whom”, it was also contended that the Parliament was aware of the concept of “gays” and “lesbians” even while the Special Marriage Act was promulgated in 1954 but there was a “conscious omission” to not recognise same sex marriages. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp<br />