The Centre on Wednesday, 19 April, wrote to the states, asking for their view on the petitions seeking legal sanction of marriage equality, which are being heard by a five-judge Constitution bench in the Supreme Court.
On day one of the hearing on Tuesday, 18 April, the Narendra Modi government urged the Supreme Court to make all states party to the proceedings on the petitions. With the apex court declining the request, the Centre has now written to the states, seeking their opinion.
Use 'Spouse' Instead of 'Husband' & 'Wife': Petitioners
Continuing his arguments for petitioners seeking marriage equality under the Special Marriage Act, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said on Wednesday:
"In the Special Marriage Act (SMA), wherever 'husband' and 'wife' is used, make it gender neutral by using 'spouse'. And 'man' and 'woman' should be substituted by 'person'. A large part of problem will be solved through this interpretation."
"Our rights are cast in stone after two Constitution bench judgments. Our right has to now go forward, at least in the sphere of secular laws if not personal laws. Effect of declaration of marriage must flow to secular parts such as gratuity, pension, adoption etc," Rohatgi added.
He added that "I walk in to a public space with my partner knowing that the law and the state recognises this union as a marriage, no one will raise stigma against me."
'Right to Choose at The Heart Of Case'
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Sighvi, in his argument, said that the heart of the same-sex marriage case is the 'right to choose' and the 'heart of the matter is marital relationship...regardless of gender identity."
"Navtej was momentous and it was little done in vast undone and this case is significantly done. This case is removing the next brick of discrimination," he added.
"We're talking about group insurance. I am a family with one, two, and children – you get a family group insurance. There you may not get," he added, pointing the lack of such rights for same-sex couples.
"How my lords define marriage will address those concerns. So there is no specific RBI guideline. The assumption is that if you're spouses, you can have that joint bank account. Similarly, for insurance," Menaka Guruswamy, also representing petitioners, said before the court.
'Not Getting Into Personal Laws'
On the first day of the hearing, the Supreme Court bench – comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha, and Hima Kohli – said that it "would not touch personal laws" at this stage.
"Now that we've understood broadly the canvas of the matter, we can at this stage, steer clear of personal law. If we steer clear of personal law, perhaps that is one possible option..." observed CJI Chandrachud.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)