Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to the marriages of same-sex couples. 

Brief Facts

One couple had assailed the prevailing interpretation of the Special Marriages Act. They had approached the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to apply for marriage. They were refused entry into the building. Their lawyer was told that since they were a same-sex couple, they could not marry.

Another same-sex couple, two men who had been married by the highest-ranking Indian Judge in New York, were denied the registration of their marriage under the Foreign Marriages Act by the Indian Consulate in New York. Advocate Arundhati Katju was also present on behalf of the Petitioners. Advocate Sangita Rai was present on behalf of one of the Respondent-authorities.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing the Petitioners, stated that the couples prayed to be recognised as “full human beings” on behalf of two same-sex couples. The Petitioners had been rendered right-less, argued Adv. Guruswamy. It was further stated that the Consulate had openly admitted to having denied the marriage registration on the ground of sexual orientation alone. The couple was told that the prevailing guidelines do not permit the registration of their marriage. 

It was further asserted that the authorities’ actions indicated that they were unaware of the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Puttuswamy’s case and the Navtej Singh Johar case, whereby the Apex Court had ruled against the discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. 

Responding to Justice Menon’s query on whether any appeal was moved before the government challenging such refusal to recognise the marriages, the Counsel pointed out that the Petitioners were not even allowed such an opportunity. It was also asserted that the issue was not a matter of customary rights, but rather of civil rights that were sought to be recognised. 

The Counsel drew the Court’s attention to how special rights were given to married couples. This was for buying a house, availing life insurance policies, taking care of the families of one’s partner, getting loans, etc. 

She relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Puttaswamy and the Navtej Singh Johar cases to assert that Article 21 had been interpreted to encompass the rights of same-sex couples, including their right to marry. 

In this backdrop, she argued that the Petitioners want recognition as full citizens. She explained that while the earlier plea was filed in the public interest by parties not directly affected, the instant case involves petitioners who were aggrieved. 

She went on to highlight that the Special Marriages Act only dealt with parties who cannot enter into a marriage. i.e. insane persons, minors, degrees of relations, and where there was no consent. 

Respondent’s Contentions

The Central Government’s Standing Counsel was Advocate Kirtiman Singh. He argued that the matter cannot be treated as adversarial.

Advocate Raj Kumar Yadav submitted that the matter was a “peculiar situation”. Notably, while responding to the earlier plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the Delhi High Court that our legal system did not recognise the marriage between same-sex couples.

Court’s Observations

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justices RS Endlaw and Asha Menon issued a notice in the matter. The remark drew a sharp response from Justice Menon, who stated that the laws were gender-neutral. 

Justice Endlaw pointed out that the definition of “marriage” in Indian law had not been statutorily defined. This meant that authorities generally relied on its customary interpretation. Notice in the present matter was accepted by both the Union of India and the Government of Delhi. 

The Court directed the parties to file affidavits within four weeks. The rejoinders thereto may be filed within four weeks thereafter. 

Court’s Decision

The Court listed the matter for its next hearing on January 8, 2021.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -