Supreme Court is hearing petitions filed on gay marriage
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court, while hearing a plea to legalize same-sex marriage, said on Tuesday that it is an established principle that “judges do not make laws” and cited a US top court ruling denying any constitutional authority to the Centre. Told not to give. To have an abortion in support of your argument.
The Center referred to the controversial decision of the US Supreme Court in the Dobbs case in support of its argument that the judiciary should not go into the domain of the legislature.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud expressed strong reservations to the reference, saying that the point is well taken, but the matter should not be referred as India recognizes women’s rights. He has gone a long way in giving.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the issue of giving legal sanction for same-sex marriage should be left to Parliament and it was dealing with a “very complex” subject which has a very “deep social impact” and about 160 One has to go through the provisions of various laws.
To buttress the submissions, the top law officer referred to the Roe v Wade case, a 50-year-old landmark decision by the US top court that established the constitutional right to abortion in 1973.
He said the US top court would overturn it in 2022 citing the judiciary’s inability to legislate in the Dobbs case and that “the right to regulate abortion has been returned to the people and their elected representatives”.
In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud said, “…these judgments which you (Solicitor General) have cited on the extent of judicial power…the principle of law is well established. There is no question about it.” that judges do not. Legislature. The power to legislate in view of various social complexities rests with the legislature. That principle is a well established principle.” But if you are relying on the Dobbs (case) in support of that principle If so, we have gone a long way ahead of Dobbs in India. Because, it represents the view in which the US Supreme Court said that women have no physical control over their own bodily integrity. This principle has been rejected long back in our country. So, you are wrong decision I have pronounced the judgment in support of that principle,” the CJI said.
The law officer said he was not inclined to cite foreign judgments and cited it to support the contention that the issue of same-sex marriage should be left to Parliament. He said that he was not citing it for the facts of that case.
The CJI said, “Fair, but don’t cite Dobbs. Because, we have gone far ahead of Dobbs here. And, fortunately. We can give credit to ourselves that we are far ahead of the western countries.”
The bench, also comprising Justices SK Kaul, SR Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment where it had given the right to abortion to unmarried women as well.
“For example, our law only gave married women the right to have an abortion between 20 and 24 weeks (of pregnancy). We dealt with that. Unmarried women came to us and said they should also have this right. And we upheld it. Kept. Okay. We have gone too far…,” the bench said.
The bench also considered a British judgment which upheld and provided for the right of tenancy to a same-sex surviving partner.
“The idea is that when a tenant dies and any one, who is in permanent residence and is a member of the family, is also entitled to the preservation of the tenancy. which is otherwise an heritable property. This principle and Gaidon (British decision) did the same thing. That said, well, if you have a same-sex partner, even though the law doesn’t recognize a same-sex surviving spouse, you have a right to tenancy Maybe,” it said.
The idea was to protect one of the occupants under the tenancy law, in terms of social welfare, it said. On the issue of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the bench said that it was intended to be a religion neutral law.
“The idea was to create a platform for partners who do not marry within their personal law. In that sense it is religion neutral. The whole purpose was to allow two persons who profess different religions or belong to different castes ( Belong to) to get married.” CJI said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)