Marriage recognised only between man & woman, says Centre

Marriage recognised only between man & woman, says Centre

Abhinav.Garg@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:26.10.2021

Marriage is recognised only between “a biological man and a biological woman” under the Indian law, the Centre on Monday told Delhi High Court, reiterating its stand.

“The law as it stands...personal laws are settled, and marriage, which is contemplated, is between a biological man and a biological woman,” solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, opposing a clutch of petitions seeking recognition/registration of samesex marriages.

Mehta echoed the government’s earlier stand disclosed in an affidavit that a “spouse” means either a husband or a wife and “marriage” is a term associated with heterosexual couples.

“The issue here is whether marriage is permissible between homosexual couples. Your lordships have to see that. There are some misconceptions regarding the Navtej Singh Johar case. It merely decriminalises consensual homosexual act. It does not talk about marriage,” Mehta contended, adding that there is no need for the Centre to file any specific reply regarding Citizenship Act, which has also been invoked by certain petitioners. During a short hearing, the bench also heard the counsel for the petitioners. Advocate Karuna Nandy, appearing for one of the couples, said they got married in New York and the laws applicable in their case were Citizenship Act, Foreign Marriage Act (FMA) and Special Marriage Act.

She pointed out that Centre had not yet filed a reply to her clients’ plea that highlighted how Citizenship Act was silent on the gender and sexuality of the spouse and it provided that a person married to an overseas citizen of India (OCI) whose marriage was registered and subsisting for two years should be declared eligible to apply as a spouse for an OCI card.

Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, representing another set of petitioners, said the SC verdict on homosexuality might not have expressly allowed same-sex marriage, but constitutional jurisprudence required interpretation and the verdict favoured recognising it.