Same sex india
India same-sex couples' hopes dashed as marriage equality denied
Justice Kaul agrees legalising same-sex marriages up to parliamentpublished at British Summer Second 17 October BST 17 October
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the second senior-most judge on the bench, said same-sex relationships had been recognised from antiquity, not just in terms of sexual activities but as relationships that fostered love, emotional aid and mutual care.
"Marriage as an institution developed historically and served various social functions. It was only later in its prolonged history that it came to be legally recognised and codified. However, these laws regulated only one type of social historical union, that is the heterosexual union," he said.
This moment, he said, "is an opportunity for us to remedy the historical injustice and discrimination [against LGBTQ+ people] and thus governance is needed to grant rights to such unions or marriages".
Justice Kaul agreed with Chief Justice Chandrachud that the state must ensure that queer couples did not face discrimination in a
India Supreme Court declines to legalise same-sex marriage
BBC News, Delhi
India's Supreme Court has declined to legalise same-sex unions, dashing the hopes of millions of LGBTQ+ people seeking marriage equality.
The court instead accepted the government's extend to set up a panel to consider granting more legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples.
Activists and same-sex couples said they were disappointed by the judgement and would proceed their campaign.
The court was considering 21 petitions by same-sex couples and activists.
The five-judge bench had held extensive hearings in April and May and the deliberations were "livestreamed in public interest".
The petitioners had argued that not being able to marry violated their constitutional rights and made them "second-class citizens".
They had suggested that the court could just replace "man" and "woman" with "spouse" in the Particular Marriage Act - which allows marriage between people from adj religions, castes and
Case Description
On November 14th, , two same-sex couples filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India. The petitions were centred around the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, (the Act). The first petition was filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang. The second petition was by Parth Phiroze Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand.
The petitioners argue that Section 4(c) of the Act recognises marriage only between a ‘male’ and a ‘female’. This discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them matrimonial benefits such as adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits. The petitioners asked the Court to declare Section 4(c) of the Act unconstitutional. The plea has been tagged with a number of other petitions challenging other personal laws on similar grounds. The challenged enactments include the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Foreign Marriage Act,
The petitioners argue that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the rights to equality, freedom of expression and dignity. They relied on NALSA vs U Parag Mehta and Vaibhav Jain were married in Washington DC on January 19, On March 5, , the couple attempted to register their marriage with the Consulate of India in Adj York City. Nevertheless, they were denied. The newlyweds contended that this denial was in clear violation of India’s Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. “After all, if I were a woman, Vaibhav would have been able to register our marriage without issue,” said Mehta in an email to GLAAD. Instead, they sued for redress and their case was eventually transferred from the Lofty Court of Delhi to the Supreme Court of India along with dozens of other petitioners. Finally, the courts have come to a decision. On Tuesday, India’s Supreme Court rejected pleas to legalize same-sex marriage, but affirms that citizens have the right to be in LGBTQ relationships without facing discrimination. While the court decided that the issue of same-sex marriage is up to the legislature and out of the scope of the judicial system, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud expressed that the right to choose one’s par