The Indian Supreme Court has begun hearing several petitions seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage in the country. The proceedings, which are being “livestreamed in public interest,” have sparked a lively debate between same-sex couples and LGBTQ+ activists who hope for a favorable ruling, and the government and religious leaders who strongly oppose same-sex union.
Lawyers for the petitioners argued that marriage should be considered a union of two people, not just a man and woman, and that the laws should reflect the changing concepts of marriage over time. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, representing the government, questioned the court’s authority to hear the matter and argued that only parliament could discuss the socio-legal issue of marriage.
Despite the government’s objections, the judges have decided to examine whether the Special Marriage Act of 1954, which allows marriages between people of different castes and religions, could be adjusted to include LGBTQ+ people. The court has instructed both sides to complete their arguments by Thursday.
The hearings have drawn attention from gender rights activists and supporters of the LGBTQ+ community, as India is home to an estimated tens of millions of LGBTQ+ people. A favorable decision would make India the 35th country to legalize same-sex union and bring significant changes in society, including adjustments to laws governing adoption, divorce, and inheritance.
Among the 18 couples who have petitioned the Supreme Court for marriage rights are Ankita Khanna and Dr. Kavita Arora, who have been waiting for years to tie the knot. They have been living together for more than a decade and say they are unable to marry, despite being readily accepted by their families and friends.
Opposition to same-sex marriage from the government and religious leaders has made it challenging for advocates like senior lawyers Menaka Guruswamy and Arundhati Katju, who represent six same-sex union cases in court. The government has urged the top court to reject the petitions, arguing that marriage can only take place between a heterosexual man and woman. The leaders from all of India’s main religions have opposed same-sex union, with some insisting that marriage “is for procreation, not recreation.”
A favorable decision in the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on the mental health of LGBTQ+ people, according to the Indian Psychiatric Society, the country’s leading mental health group representing over 7,000 psychiatrists. The organization issued a statement in support of the petitioners, stating that discrimination against LGBTQ+ people could lead to mental health issues.
The landmark hearing is of “seminal importance,” according to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who has set up a five-judge constitutional bench to rule on the matter. Regardless of the outcome, Ankita and Kavita remain optimistic and steadfast in their faith in the judiciary and the Indian constitution’s promise of equality and diversity.