New Delhi9 minutes ago
- copy link
Today is the fourth day of hearing on the demand for same sex marriage in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court will hear again today on 20 petitions demanding legal recognition of same sex marriage. Hearing is going on continuously for the last 3 days in this case. On Thursday, amidst the arguments given by the petitioners for about 4 hours, the Supreme Court had asked whether it is necessary to have two different gender partners for an institution like marriage?
The matter is being heard by a five-judge constitutional bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli.
CJI said – in any case finish the arguments by Monday
Concluding the third day’s hearing, CJI Chandrachud named 13 lawyers for further arguments. Also said that the arguments on behalf of the petitioners would end on Monday in any case. For this, the lawyers should discuss among themselves and distribute the time.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta is representing the Center on Same Sex Marriage. Several lawyers, including senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, are defending the petitions in favor of same sex marriage.
Arguments of three senior advocates in Thursday’s hearing
It’s only our decision with whom to stay: Abhishek Manu Singhvi
During the hearing on Thursday, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, counsel for the petitioners, said, “It will be my (petitioners’) decision only. It will be my heart’s decision. With whom and for how long I will stay is my right. Why should we tell the world that we are getting married?
This provision of Special Marriage Act is unconstitutional as you are infringing on my privacy before marriage formalities. I am being asked to invite protest by expressing my intention.”
It is wrong to look at marriage from the perspective of progeny: KV Viswanathan
Senior advocate KV Vishwanathan, appearing for another petitioner, said, “It is totally wrong to look at marriage from the point of view of progeny. Those people say that you cannot do progeny. Is this the reason behind not giving the status of marriage?” Could there be a valid reason? Do old people not marry? Are those who cannot have children not allowed to marry?”
The statement of urban elite class thinking is not sensitive: Raju Ramachandran
The Center had argued on April 18 that the demand for recognition of same sex marriage is the thinking of the elite class of the cities. On this, the petitioner’s lawyer Raju Ramachandran said- In 1956, Justice Vivian Bose had given a historic judgment and said that the constitution is for the common man, for the poor, for the businessman, for the butcher, for the bread maker. For and for the candle maker.
Raju Ramachandran said that for the people for whom I am present in the court today, I find it important to mention it here today. One of the petitioners is Kajal, a Dalit woman. Belongs to a city in Punjab. The second petitioner Bhavna is a resident of Bahadurgarh, Haryana and is an OBC. Bhavna is an accountant in Chandigarh and Kajal is an assistant in a bakery. The presence of these petitioners dispels the notion that the legality of same sex marriage is the view of the urban elite class.
Supreme Court’s comment – the concepts of marriage will have to be redefined
On Thursday, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said on the recognition of same sex marriage, “Now we have to redefine the changing notions about marriage. Because the question is whether it is necessary for marriage to have two partners who are different- Be of different genders? Here the law has been able to recognize that there can be two different genders for marriage, but this is not necessary for the definition of marriage. Read full news…
Now read the news related to the hearing of the first 2 days…
Hearing of the second day – the petitioner said – the status of marriage gives financial support and security
Hearing on 20 petitions seeking legal recognition of same sex marriage ended in the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the second day. On Thursday, the hearing will begin with the arguments of Advocate Singhvi. During the hearing, the CJI said that the government does not have this data, which proves that same sex marriage is an elite class concept. Read full news…
First day’s hearing – The government said – there should be no hearing on the matter; CJI said – exercise for the next generations
Opposing the recognition of same sex, the central government said that we are getting entangled in this matter. We are saying that the matter should not be heard at all. This is a very sensitive issue. On this, the court said that the exercise of hearing is being done for generations to come. The court and Parliament will decide on this later. Read full news…