Hearing in the Supreme Court on the second day in the Same Sex Marriage case.
Hearing in the Supreme Court on the second day in the Same Sex Marriage case.
Same Sex Marriage: The petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage were heard in the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the second consecutive day. It is being heard by a constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. before this gay marriage A hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the case of Same Sex Marriage. The Supreme Court, while hearing arguments in this regard, said that same-sex relationships are not just an urban elitist concept. The Chief Justice said that more people coming forward to reveal their sexual identity in cities, but this does not mean that it can be called an urban idea.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that the Central Government does not have any such record to show that same sex marriage The demand is limited to the urban class only. He said that the state cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of a characteristic over which a human being has no control.
Opposing the petition on the demand to give legal recognition to gay marriage, it has said that it only reflects the thinking of some urban class. Presenting arguments on behalf of the petitioners on the demand for legal recognition in this regard, on Wednesday, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that if the country has to move forward, then the court will have to take the initiative. Mukul Rohatgi said that sometimes law takes the lead, but there are many such occasions when the society takes the lead.
At the same time, the Central Government had earlier requested the Supreme Court that the side of all the states should also be known in the proceedings on the petitions demanding the right to marry for same-sex couples, but the court rejected this request. However, after this, now the Central Government has decided to write a letter to the states to know their stand on this matter. On this matter, the Central Government says that it should be allowed to discuss with the states and place them before the court and also said that till then the hearing should be postponed. Mukul Rohatgi, counsel for the petitioner side, strongly opposed the letter saying that the central law has been challenged. States are not required to issue notices.
