Page 5 - Section 377 News Today

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, drew a controversial parallel between same-sex marriages and incest by presenting a hypothetical situation.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said: “…Is the existence of two spouses who belong to a binary gender necessary for the requirement of marriage or has our law now progressed sufficiently to contemplate that the existence of binary genders, maybe, is not necessary for your definition of marriage.”

Same sex marriage debate: Now that the Centre’s urban-elitist argument has been rejected by CJI Chandrachud, all eyes are on the Supreme Court on what is next in the journey of the LGBTQ+ rights in India

How Supreme Court strikes a powerful blow for freedom and choice, underlines inclusion of all

The century-old the law against homosexuality was imposed on pre-independent India in accordance with the Christian principles on which the British kingdom was founded.

In April 2021, responding to the RTI query, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had not taken any measures to publicise the issue.

The woman said her husband used to have unnatural sex with her against her wish.

In a separate but concurring opinion, Justice Chandrachud had recognised that indirect discrimination would violate the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution as much as “direct discrimination.”

The doctrine of animus was used to legalise same-sex marriage in the US. It refers to a subjective dislike or animosity in the actions of a government which leads to constitutional discrimination against certain groups.

To shun dogma and accept as equal, in the truest sense, orientations and love and unions in their infinite varieties and forms, is also a foundational principle in our Constitution