The government reaffirmed its position in its newest application, filed on Sunday, claiming the petitions addressing same-sex marriage before the court mostly represent the views of urban elites seeking social recognition. The government contended that individual viewpoints could not be equated with broader societal viewpoints and perspectives better reflected by the legislative process.The stand of the government on same-sex marriageAccording to the government, the decision not to sanction same-sex marriage is a question of legislative policy, not a dispute that should be resolved in court. The government further stated that the institution of marriage, which is between a biological man and a biological woman, is supported by a clear legal policy and a compelling state interest.The government warned the court against recognising the right to same-sex marriage, claiming that such a ruling would effectively rewrite an entire body of law. The government contended that the legislative branch is the proper authority to make such a decision. The government emphasised that any change in the legislation on this subject must come from the bottom up and through the legislative process because the underlying social origins of marriage laws necessitate a legitimate and democratic approach to reform. According to the government, the judicial decree cannot impose change, and the rate of change must be established by the legislature, which best judges societys interests and values.The Centre petitioned the court for a judgement on whether the petitions might be examined as a preliminary issue. The petitioners, according to the Centre, are requesting the establishment of a new social institution known as “marriage,” which differs from the present legal framework. Every citizens interests are affected by the question of legal recognition of same-sex marriage and its comparison to conventional marriage, which is solely between a man and a woman and has religious significance. This raises the question of whether such issues, which necessitate the establishment of a new social organisation, can be resolved through judicial decisions.As per the Centres argument, the petitions only represent the viewpoints of urban elites. The Centre thinks that competent legislators must evaluate a broader range of ideas, including those of rural, semi-rural, and urban communities, as well as religious groups views, while also taking into account personal laws and customs that govern marriage.The demands of the petitionersThe petitioners, who include same-sex couples and rights activists, claim that present laws restrict them from the right to marry and have asked the court to either modify the existing laws to include same-sex marriage or deem them illegal. The Hindu Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, and other marriage laws are among them.On April 18, a hearing on the legal recognition of same-sex marriages will begin, with at least 15 petitions contesting the validity of pertinent provisions of various marriage statutes. A constitution bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha, and Hima Kohli will preside over the hearing. On March 13, the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench.
