New Delhi:

Calling marriage an “exclusively heterogenous institution”, the Centre right now once more opposed granting authorized sanction to same-sex marriage, and mentioned the query of contemplating it equal to the present idea of marriage “seriously affects the interests of every citizen”. A courtroom order recognising same-sex marriages would imply a digital judicial rewriting of a whole department of legislation, the federal government argued, including that the Court should chorus from passing such “omnibus orders”.

It’s not discrimination to grant recognition to the “heterogenous institution of marriage alone” to the exclusion of same-sex marriage, the federal government argued, saying that it is because standard and universally accepted socio-legal relationships like marriages throughout all religions, are “deeply rooted in the Indian social context and indeed is considered a sacrament in all branches of Hindu law. Even in Islam, though it is a contract, it is a sacred contract and a valid marriage is only between a biological male and a biological woman”.

Calling the petitions “mere urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance,” the Centre in its submission to the highest courtroom mentioned that the Parliament must take note of “broader views and voices of all rural, semi-rural and urban populations, views of religious denominations keeping in mind personal laws as well, and customs governing the field of marriage together with its inevitable cascading effects on several other statutes”.

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, is ready to listen to a clutch of petitions in search of authorized recognition for same-sex marriages on Tuesday.

The matter “raises critical issues as to whether questions of such a nature, which necessarily entails the creation of a new social institution, can be prayed for as a part of the process of judicial adjudication”, it contended.

The Centre identified that additional creation of rights, recognition of relationships, and giving authorized sanctity to such relationships might be completed solely by the legislature, and never by the judiciary.

“It’s purely a matter of legislative policy under Entry 5 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution, which ought to be determined by the appropriate Legislature only,” the Centre emphasised.

It additional argued that the creation or recognition of a brand new social establishment altogether “cannot be claimed as a matter of right/choice, much less a fundamental right”. The proper to non-public autonomy doesn’t embrace a proper for the popularity of same-sex marriage and that too by means of judicial adjudication, the Centre mentioned.

Which social relationships will likely be legally recognised will likely be determined by the representatives of the individuals, the submission acknowledged, including that they’re the “appropriate democratic institution” protecting in thoughts “the sanctity attached to the institution of marriage in the country, the societal ethos, cherished values in the concept of family, and other such relevant considerations”.

“The petitions which merely reflect urban elitist views cannot be compared with the appropriate legislature, which reflects the views and voices of a far wider spectrum and expands across the country,” it mentioned.

According to the Constitution, the courts don’t exchange the coverage of the legislature with its personal. The train ought to solely be “what is the law” and never “what the law should have been”, it added.