Centre opposes same-sex marriage

The Union Government yesterday told the Delhi High Court that marriage in India necessarily depends on “age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values”. This was stated while seeking dismissal of petitions praying for recognition of same-sex marriages under existing laws.

The Centre argued that by reading down the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which covers homosexuality, the Supreme Court “had only decriminalised a particular human behaviour, but neither intended to nor did it legitimise the human conduct in question.”

The Centre’s reply as filed on behalf of the Ministry of Law and Justice and the reply opposing three petitions seeking legalisation of same-sex marriages, stated that considerations of “societal morality” are relevant while considering the validity of a law and that there exists a “legitimate State interest” in limiting the recognition of marriage to persons (only) of opposite sex. The Centre told the Delhi High Court that it is for the legislature to enforce such societal morality and public acceptance based upon Indian ethos.

The three cases are being heard by a Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal.

One petition has been filed by Parag Vijay Mehta, an Overseas Citizen of India card holder and Vaibhav Jain an Indian citizen. They got married to each other in Washington DC in 2017, but their application for registration of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act was rejected by the Consulate General of India in New York.

Another petition has been filed by Dr Kavita Arora, a psychiatrist and Ankita Khanna, a therapist seeking enforcement of Fundamental Right to choice of partner. Their application for solemnisation of marriage under the Special Marriage Act was rejected by the marriage registration officials of Delhi.

The third petition seeks recognition of same-sex marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act and has been filed by Abhijit Iyer Mitra and three others.

The government’s reply added that living together as partners or in a relationship with a same-sex individual is “not comparable” with the “Indian family unit concept” of a husband, wife and children and that the institution of marriage has a “sanctity”. “In our country, despite statutory recognition of the relationship of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, marriage necessarily depends upon age-old customs… societal values.”

The government also argued that while marriage happens between two private individuals, it “cannot be relegated” to merely a concept within the domain of privacy of an individual. On the other hand, the Centre told the Delhi High Court, marriage is recognised as public recognition of a relationship, with which several statutory rights and obligations are attached.

The next hearing of the three petitions will be on April 20.