Same sex marriage in india
India: Failure to legalise same-sex marriage a ‘setback’ for human rights
In response to today’s Supreme Court of India verdict which refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage in the region leaving it for the Parliament to formulate necessary legislation, Aakar Patel, chair of board at Amnesty International India, said:
“This was indeed a historic missed opportunity for the Supreme Court of India to herald in a new era in what has been a long fight for equal rights of LGBTI people. All people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, should be able to appreciate the full range of human rights, including the right to marry.
This was a historic missed opportunity for the Supreme Court of India to herald in a new era in what has been a long battle for equal rights of LGBTI people.
Aakar Patel, chair of board at Amnesty International India
“At the same time, the ruling on ending all discrimination against same-sex couples and expanding their rights is a positive step that sends a clear message to the Indian government that its laws on same-sex marriag
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 Novel 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 Upper 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
Discriminated homosexuality in India: the overriding effect of social morality over constitutional morality
In the judgement of Supriyo alias Supriyo Chakraborty and another vs. Union of India, on October 17, , the five judges of the Supreme Court of India passed a decision which by majority stated that no person has a fundamental right to marry the person of the same gender.
Relevant to this context is a more recent issue that has garnered media and judicial interest in , namely a scandal involving an alleged gender transform surgery undertaken at the instigation of a partner who later rescinded a promise of marriage. Persuaded by their partner to undergo the surgery, the victim was subjected to betrayal when the accused refused to honour the commitment. This incident has foregrounded the dire need for gender-neutral laws regarding the complexities of consent, identity, and personal autonomy in modern India.
This wider social discourse has made me introspect about my own biases and limitations. A few months ago, while I was in Delhi, something happened that ma
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