Marriage Equality Case | 'Declaration Of Right To Marry Necessary To End Stigma Against LGBTQIA+ Community', Mukul Rohatgi Argues In Supreme Court

On the first day of the hearings in the batch of petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage in India, the primary arguments raised before the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court pertained to marriage being a way to help assimilate queer individuals in the society better and end stigma against them. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha. This article highlights the arguments raised by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, opposing the batch of petitions. Other stories on the hearings can be found here and here. Declare Same-Sex Marriages To Be At Par With Heterosexual Marriages: Senior Advocate Mukul RohatgiSenior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, prayed for a two-fold relief. First, he asked for a declaration of marriage as a fundamental right for queer individuals which has been implicit in the constitutional guarantee of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution; and second, that the same also finds recognition with an appropriate reading of the Special Marriage Act. Beginning his arguments, he first sought to establish that the queer community enjoyed equal rights as their heterosexual counterparts. He relied upon the judgements in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union Of India, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union Of India, and Anuj Garg & Ors v Hotel Association Of India, among others to establish the same. Further, while referring to the Preamble of the Constitution, Rohatgi stated that rights guaranteed under the Constitution were for all individuals. He added that such rights included equality, justice, fraternity, and liberty among other things. Following this, he argued that if the rights of the queer community were identical to their heterosexual counterparts, there was no reason for them to not be granted the right to marry. Taking the court through marriage equality rights across the globe, he stated that a similar development had taken place in other States including the US and the UK. He then argued that stigma against the queer community would only end once they become at par with the heterosexual community. He said–"We want a declaration that we have a right to marry, that right will be recognised by the State and will be registered under Special Marriage Act. Once that happens, the society will accept us. The stigma will only go once the state recognises it. That will be full and final assimilation. I want to say that your lordships may broadly read 'spouse' in place of 'man and woman' or 'husband and wife'."On the Centre's argument that the petitions solely represented 'urban elitist views' and that the 'popular will' of the people was to exclude same sex couples from the institution of marriage, Rohatgi argued that society and people were resistant to change and would follow the law. He also argued that the law and the Constitution were static in nature and did evolve with time. He submitted–"Take the Hindu Widows Right to Remarry Act, 1860 something. The society was not ready. Till even early 90s the society wasn't ready. Sometimes mindsets do not change. Parliament or the legislative assembly sometimes acts with more alacrity, sometimes with less. Navtej was 5 years ago. In 5 years we've seen the change. Some stigma is still there. That stigma can only be removed with the declaration - just like a declaration was made in Navtej."Rohatgi added that the concept of marriage itself had changed over the last 100 years with practices such as child marriages or marrying multiple number of times under Hindu law having been outlawed. He also added that the test of popular acceptance did not furnish a valid basis to disregard rights which were conferred upon individuals with the sanctity of constitutional protection. He said–"Because we're minuscule, because we have faced this over the years, because we have been sidetracked, because we're looked at with disdain, because we're looked as queers – they are saying you're not good. I cannot be discriminated upon because we may be ten thousand and the others are ten crores. This is the core of my submission."Continuing his submissions, Rohatgi further contended that–"Procreation, in today's scenario, can also include adoption, IVF, surrogacy- it need not only be procreation in one form. I don't want merely an amendment to the Act without the declaration. Because if your lordships only interpret the act, tomorrow it can be amended and then we're sunk. Thus, I request a constitutional declaration of marriage akin to heterogeneous groups."Finally, he stated that it was not enough for queer individuals to have privacy to make their choices but it was also essential for the State to grant them a right equally to have the recognition of social groups. Here, he gave the example of reservations and stated that affirmative action was...

Marriage Equality Case | 'Declaration Of Right To Marry Necessary To End Stigma Against LGBTQIA+ Community', Mukul Rohatgi Argues In Supreme Court

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

Marriage Equality Case | 'Declaration Of Right To Marry Necessary To End Stigma Against LGBTQIA+ Community', Mukul Rohatgi Argues In Supreme Court

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers