Supreme Court and Union Government Clash Over Definition of Male and Female in Same-Sex Marriage Case

178

During a disagreement over the definition of male and female between a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court and the Union government, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud stated on Tuesday that there is no absolute definition of man or woman and that the concept is far more intricate than simply categorizing individuals based on their biological sex. This statement prompted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to strongly object, stating that such a flexible interpretation of man or woman would render many laws impractical, as they differentiate between biological men and women.

The exchange between the two occurred after the five-judge panel, consisting of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, narrowed their focus to the legalization of same-sex marriage under the secular legislation of the Special Marriage Act of 1954, omitting any discussion of personal laws.

The Solicitor General further argued that regardless of whether the Supreme Court limits its scope to the Special Marriage Act, an LGBTQ individual who identifies as a Hindu may request the right to marry under the Hindu Marriage Act in the future. This is why the government believes that all states should have the opportunity to voice their opinion on whether the court is the appropriate venue to make a decision about the issue since marriage is a socio-legal institution that grants rule-making authority to states.