[ad_1]
NEW DELHI:
The proceedings on the second day of the hearing on the demand for legalisation of same-sex marriages and to put them on an equal footing with heterosexual unions turned up ample indications of the apex court’s outlook, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
In its affidavit, the Centre had termed the demand something that concerned the urban elite. Disapproving the Centre’s description, CJI DY Chandrachud said, “When you say it is an innate characteristic, it is also an argument in response to the contention (of the Centre) that it is very elitist or urban or suffers some class bias. Once something is innate, it cannot have any class bias,” he said. “It may be more urban in its manifestations because more people in urban areas are coming out of the closet.”
Senior advocate AM Singhvi, who appeared for the petitioners, said there was nothing urban or rural about sexual orientation.
Questioning the basis of the Centre’s stand, the CJI said, “There is no data provided by the government to indicate that it is an urban concept. There is no data at all.”
Importantly, in what was seen as reflective of his viewpoint, the CJI went on to deal with the issue of whether same-sex couples were entitled to the entire bouquet of rights – adoption, succession, inheritance – which a heterosexual couple is entitled to as a corollary to the right to marriage.
“Even if a couple is lesbian or gay, it will be open for them to adopt. If a single parent can adopt, why can’t two persons of the same sex living together not be allowed to adopt? So, the argument that it would have an impact on the upbringing of a child is fallacious,” the CJI said as he frowned upon NCPCR stand opposing adoptions by same-sex couples.
This despite the fact that the bench had decided to keep the purview of the adjudication limited to the issue of whether same-sex marriages could be recognised as valid unions under the Special Marriage Act.
#CJI #data #show #sexual #orientation #elitist #concept #India #News
