The Indian authorities has expressed its vehement opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, calling it an “urban elitist concept” that undermines spiritual and social values, because the supreme courtroom begins hearings on the rights of LGBTQ individuals to be married beneath the regulation.

On Tuesday, dozens of petitions from LGBTQ {couples} and activists had been introduced earlier than the nation’s highest courtroom as a part of a collective lawsuit that’s battling for the fitting of LGBTQ individuals to be married and have equality beneath the regulation.

It is essentially the most important problem to the homosexual rights status-quo since 2018 when, in a landmark judgment, the supreme courtroom struck down a colonial period regulation criminalising homosexuality.

The hearings on same-sex marriage come amid a gradual societal shift in India the place LGBTQ individuals are changing into extra seen, significantly in in style tradition and in delight marches held in main cities, whereas there’s a rising consciousness round the fitting to equality. However, most settle for there may be nonetheless an extended option to go by way of full social acceptance and security from stigma and harassment, because the nation stays deeply conventional and patriarchal.

The chief justice has referred to as the wedding challenge one among “seminal importance” and a five-judge panel will hear the case, which is predicted to go for a minimum of two weeks.

On Monday the Hindu nationalist authorities, led by prime minister Narendra Modi, submitted a strongly worded affidavit to the supreme courtroom expressing its opposition to same-sex marriage and searching for to get the case thrown out of the courtroom.

“A valid marriage is only between a biological male and a biological woman,” mentioned the federal government’s submission, stating that any equality provided to same-sex {couples} went in opposition to spiritual values and “seriously affects the interests of every citizen”, arguing that such a choice must be made by parliament not the courts.

The Modi authorities additionally lately opposed the promotion of a homosexual lawyer to the supreme courtroom on the idea of his sexuality.

The legal professionals and petitioners who introduced the lawsuit had been optimistic in regards to the case, emphasising that the supreme courtroom had made a number of important rulings on LGBTQ rights even within the face of presidency opposition, together with a 2014 case which recognised transgender individuals as a “third gender”.

Among these combating the case are Kavita Arora and Ankita Khanna, a pair from Delhi who’ve been collectively for 11 years, after working collectively and finally falling in love.

Their motivation for bringing the case was each sensible – the necessity for a joint checking account, to present one another medical consent and to be legally recognised for inheritance – but additionally, mentioned Khanna, a “fundamental belief that India as a democracy is a place for diversity, equality and justice for all and under the constitution our rights are no less than others.”

Arora added: “As we have grown together, we’ve understood that marriage in our country, in our culture, means a lot of important things: It means a sense of social recognition, a sense of validation and legally it sanctions a whole lot of different rights that queer couples are denied.”

They couple had first tried to get married in a civil union September 2020 however had been turned away and determined to take their case to the courts. “We do have faith in the fairness of the judiciary so we thought, why just complain about it? It deserves a debate in the highest court,” mentioned Arora.

Arora and Khanna, who each work in youngster psychological well being, mentioned that in a rustic like India the place marriage holds enormous social capital, and is sort of the bedrock of society, opening up the establishment to same-sex {couples} could be a momentous step ahead in acceptance.

“We realised that this isn’t just about us,” mentioned Khanna. “This is about so many of the young people we meet and the kind of future that they should have without thinking that just because they’re queer, they can’t have an identity and a life.”

If India legalises same-sex marriage, it is going to solely be the second nation in Asia after Taiwan to do so. Menaka Guruswamy, one of many legal professionals combating the case who was additionally on the forefront of the decriminalisation of homosexuality case in 2018, mentioned she had “complete faith in the court”.

Among the problems being raised within the case isn’t just marriage but additionally the rights of same-sex {couples} to undertake youngsters and for his or her households to have the identical rights as heterosexual mother and father. This matter has additionally been opposed by the federal government physique, the nationwide fee for defense of kid rights, which in a submission to the supreme courtroom mentioned “allowing adoption to same sex couple is akin the endangering the children.”

The case can also be pushing for the rights of trans individuals to have their relationships and households of their alternative legally recognised, arguing that it goes in opposition to a earlier judgment by the supreme courtroom.

Zainab Patel, a trans girl who’s among the many petitioners, mentioned she anticipated it to be an extended struggle however mentioned the denial of marriage to LGBTQ individuals “makes a mockery of our constitution and makes us second class citizens”.

Rohin Bhatt, one other lawyer combating the case who identifies as queer, mentioned the case had implications not only for LGBTQ {couples} but additionally about equality for all beneath the structure, and the fitting to marry who you selected, no matter gender, faith or caste; important at a time when inter-faith and inter-caste marriages are beneath assault from the Hindu proper wing.

Bhatt described is as “dehumanising and disenfranchising” to listen to the federal government’s arguments opposing same-sex marriage, accusing them of “emboldening homophobia”. He described it as a part of a wider venture of Modi’s authorities, because it shifted the nation away from the democratic values of the structure and in the direction of the rule by faith.

“It’s about fundamental rights of citizens,” mentioned Bhatt. “What we are asking for as queer people in this country is merely that the rights which exist for heterosexual couples be extended to us; nothing more and nothing less.”