Same-sex marriage: ‘Arguments premised on Parl law a dangerous proposition'

NEW DELHI: Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind', a body of Islamic scholars, told the Supreme Court on Tuesday the argument advanced by the petitioners that the apex court should make a declaration about legal validation for same-sex marriage as Parliament is not likely to do anything about it, is a "very dangerous proposition".

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind', told a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud that a declaration on the premise that Parliament is not likely to pass a law on same-sex union will be a "wrong step forward".

He told the bench that any law of this nature, which is pursuant to a "tectonic shift" in societal value, requires public discourse which includes discourse within and outside parliament.

Sibal submitted he was "very worried" at the start of the hearing when the petitioners' side said Parliament is not going to do anything about it so the apex court should make a declaration.

"I am afraid that is a very dangerous proposition. It was said at the outset that we (petitioners) don't expect the Parliament to move forward, don't expect Parliament to pass such a law and therefore, your lordships should do it. I say that is a very dangerous route to take," Sibal told the bench, which also comprised Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, P S Narasimha and Hima Kohli.

"It is a dangerous route to take because a declaration by your lordships will close the debate in parliament. There will be no scope for debate once you declare, one that it (same-sex union) is a fundamental right, two it has to be recognised," he told the bench, which was hearing arguments for the eighth day on a batch of petitions seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage.

The bench observed Parliament can overrule a declaration.