Article 377 Scrapped But Same Sex Marriage Still Against Our Laws, Values: Centre to Delhi HC

Mehta opposed the relief sought in the petition and said that "our laws, our legal system, our society and our values do not recognise a marriage, which is a sacrament, between same-sex couples".

New Delhi: Two years after the abrogation of Article 377, the Indian government is still not ready to accept same-sex marriage as such a marriage is not recognised by “our laws, legal system, society and our values”, the Centre told Delhi High Court on Monday. Also Read - Delhi-based Sex Racketeer Sonu Punjaban Moves High Court Challenging Her Sentence by Dwarka Court

The submission that marriage between same-sex couples is “not permissible”, was made by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta before a bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan that was hearing a PIL seeking declaration that same-sex marriages be recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and Special Marriage Act. Also Read - Delhi University Can Hold Online Open-book Exams For Final-year Students From August 10, Says High Court, Passes Slew of Directions | Read Here

Mehta opposed the relief sought in the petition and said that “our laws, our legal system, our society and our values do not recognise a marriage, which is a sacrament, between same-sex couples”. Also Read - Former Ranbaxy Promoter Shivinder Singh Gets Bail in Money Laundering Case

He said that such marriages cannot be granted recognition for two reasons – firstly, the petition was asking the court to legislate and secondly, any relief granted “would run contrary to various statutory provisions”.

“Unless court does violence to various laws, this cannot be done,” he said.

Mehta also pointed out that such a law would bring difficulties for various provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act where the regulating marriages or prohibited relationships talk of husband and wife.

Who would be assigned these roles where a same-sex couple was concerned, Mehta asked.

The bench observed that the world over things was changing, but it may or may not be applicable to India.

It, however, questioned the need for a PIL in the instant case, saying the people who claim to be affected are well educated and can themselves approach the court.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that the affected people were not coming forward themselves as they feared reprisals and therefore, a PIL was preferred.

It asked the lawyer appearing for the petitioner, Abhijit Iyer Mitra, to give details of the persons who were not permitted to register their same-sex marriage.

With the direction to place these factual aspects before the court, the bench listed the matter for further hearing on October 21.

The petition has contended that despite the Supreme Court decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts, marriages between same-sex couples was still not possible.

With PTI inputs

For breaking news and live news updates, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Read more on Latest India News on India.com.

Comments - Join the Discussion