The Supreme Court entered its 5th day of the same-sex marriage plea hearing on Thursday, with the Centre presenting its argument against the legalization of gay marriage in India, pointing out discrepancies in the concept of sexual autonomy.
The Centre earlier had shown a firm stance against same-sex marriage legalization in India despite the fact that Section 377 has been scrapped, paving the way for LGBTQ relationships in the country. Appearing on behalf of the Centre is Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that sexual autonomy and sexual orientation are two factors that can be raised in the future to justify the act of incest i.e. having sexual relations with your close relatives or immediate family.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, however, said that this argument is far-fetched. The Supreme Court bench added that sexual orientation or autonomy as an individual can never be exercised in all aspects of marriage including entry into wedlock and prohibited relationships, the grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved.
The solicitor general then gave an example regarding the use of sexual autonomy and incest, saying suppose a person says he is attracted to his sister and they are consenting adults and claim the right of autonomy, right of choice and right of doing something in the private domain.
The Supreme Court, however, did not consider this example as a legitimate argument in the same-sex marriage plea.
Further, the Supreme Court bench headed by DY Chandrachud said that when it comes to same-sex marriage, the question is not of marriage itself but certain benefits and rights, which may be insurance, spouse healthcare and home ownership.
The court further said that the Centre should make note of implementing these rights for LGBTQ persons as they are present for those who are currently in a heterosexual marriage. The Centre still maintains that legalising gay marriage can open up certain complications.
READ | Same sex marriage plea in Supreme Court: Know arguments of Centre, petitioners in LGBTQ rights issue
