Today, Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal argued before the Supreme Court that not legalising gay weddings in India risks encouraging lavender marriages between men and women, in which one or both partners are homosexual.
In his argument in support of the petitions calling for the legal recognition of gay weddings in India before a Constitutional bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, Kirpal stated, He continued, saying that there is a “gay brain drain” in India as a result of homosexual people frequently leaving the nation in quest of legal acknowledgment of their relationships outside of India.
The Supreme Court was informed today that 12 of the G20 nations, including the EU, had legalised same-sex unions. About 34 other nations have followed suit. India, meanwhile, is “lagging” behind.
Any two people can get married under the Special Marriage Act as long as they are heterosexual, according to Kirpal. He said that there was “clear discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
In order to allow marriage between non-heterosexual couples, he requested the Supreme Court to interpret the Act using gender-neutral language. He contended that the “Doctrine of Reading In” is not a method of determining original intention and giving it impact in this respect.
We are not engaging in an interpretative exercise to ascertain the opinions of 1954’s legislators, he argued. The LGBTQIA+ community cannot be left at the mercy of the Parliament, which has failed them for a whopping 75 years, Kirpal said. “Once a right has been established, you cannot claim that legislative proposals do not support it. In other words, you have the legal right to marry, but it won’t function. The main contention is that we will abandon you to the mercy of the legislature. But the previous 75 years have demonstrated that the parliament will not take anything when it comes to the LGBTQIA community.
In the context of homosexual people reportedly experiencing abuse in the natal family, advocate Vrinda Grover, who represents queer activists and couples in partnerships including Trans people and cis heterosexual people, placed emphasis on the notion of “chosen family.”
HARDIK SHARMA
