The Supreme Court has said in several rulings that a life devoid of freedom, autonomy, and privacy would be nothing more than a basic existence. In this way, the privacy judgement has established a brand-new paradigm of constitutional law that is reshaping and dismantling the traditional values enshrined in the constitutional text put in place at the start of the Indian Republic.
Source: The Hindu
The petitioners based their justifications on autonomy and freedom under Article 21 and equality under Article 14.
On the other side, the Indian government has stated that the need for same-sex marriage recognition runs counter to how marriage law has developed throughout history and in society.
While marriage was first thought of as a union between two people of opposing sexes, the majority of family laws have developed from religious principles and practises. As has been claimed, marriage has been a social and cultural institution whose reinterpretation will alter the guiding ideologies of society.
The administration has claimed that if such a decision needs to be made, Parliament is the appropriate institution to implement it. Marriage is viewed as a sacrament (samskara) because it is seen as a sacred union between two opposing sexes, particularly in the framework of Hindu law.
‘Right to desire’ was naturalised in a colonial construct using Victorian morality as a guide. Such partnerships were more welcome and inclusive on the subcontinent. Numerous carvings and sculptures at well-known Hindu temples in India show same-sex couples living together, which amply illustrates the tolerant attitude towards such issues.
Hindu personal law was codified in India in the 1950s, including with the passage of the Special Marriage Act. numerous people thought that such changes were intended to destroy India’s cultural identity, although they were necessary to combat numerous socio economic ills.
Source: India Today
Modern arguments for redefining marriage call for a public discussion as well as acceptance by the electorate through their representatives. Not every remedy derived from a top-down legal rationale permeates society norms and practices. Due to public ignorance or state apparatuses’ disinterest, many normative advancements made through the courts remain unimplemented. Notably, Parliament in post-Independent India progressed the improvements to the personal laws.
It is also crucial to check if the court has the authority to redefine marriage in a way that differs from that expressly stated by the legislative. It is defined as being heterosexual in all Indian family laws.
Since the beginning of human civilization, marriage has been a fundamental social institution that permeates all aspects of cultural interaction. Any modification of its idea demands open dialogue and democratic methods. Most crucially, the question of whether Indians are willing to accept the change being discussed within the walls of the Supreme Court of India may be brought up.
What do you think about this? Comment below
