The Navteji Singh Johar case in 2018 was a landmark judgement where the Supreme Court decriminalised same-sex relationships in India, though it did not validate it as part of an individual’s fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling has brought the topic of same-sex marriage into the mainstream discourse in India, sparking debates on personal laws and LGBTQIA+ rights. In recent news, the Centre has opposed the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court of India, leading to further discussions on this controversial issue.
The Stand of the Indian Government on Same-Sex Marriage
The government’s stance opposing same-sex marriage is based on the argument that marriage is predominantly dependent on cultural, societal, and religious customs and practices. They contend that same-sex marriages cannot bear the same comparison as traditional unions between a man and a woman, which usually result in families with children born out of wedlock. The current marriage laws, designed and framed by the Parliament, only recognise the union of a man and a woman. Any deviation from this norm, the government argues, can only be made through the legislature and not the Supreme Court.
The Arguments in Favour of Same-Sex Marriage
Supporters of same-sex marriage argue for equality and protection under the law. They believe that all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to marry and form a family. Discrimination or non-recognition of same-sex marriages, they argue, fundamentally undermines the dignity and self-fulfilment of LGBTQIA+ couples. Further, they underline the social and economic benefits of marriage and its role in strengthening families and communities. They also reference global acceptance, pointing out that same-sex marriage is legal in many democratic societies worldwide, and refusal of these rights goes against global principles.
The Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage
Opponents of same-sex marriage often base their views on religious and cultural beliefs, arguing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. They believe changing this traditional definition would contravene the fundamental principles of their beliefs. Other arguments against include the primary purpose of marriage being procreation, which same-sex couples cannot naturally accomplish. There also exist concerns about potential legal hurdles, such as issues related to inheritance, taxation, and property rights.
The Way Forward: Balancing Cultural Sensitivity and Individual Rights
India’s culturally diverse societal fabric necessitates any legislative or judicial decision on same-sex marriage to consider the cultural sensitivities of different communities. However, the protection of fundamental rights of individuals must also be ensured. There is a need for social acceptance and education to promote understanding and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community.
India has international obligations as it is a signatory to various international human rights treaties and conventions requiring protection of all individuals’ rights. Given that countries like Canada, the United States, and Australia have recognised same-sex marriage, it is crucial for India to legalise the same to ensure equal rights and opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Relevant excerpt: In the UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question(PYQ), the question “Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice?” was asked in 2019. The correct answer is Article 21.
Last Modified: February 20, 2024