Issue – The Supreme Court’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, informed the court that the defence of incestuous connections may be brought up tomorrow in response to the petitioners’ claims about the right to sexual orientation and the right to choose made by those demanding legal authorization for marriages involving non-binary, non-heterosexual, or transgender people.
Arguments – This clause, which states that one man has fathered a child with a biological woman, cannot ever be reconciled. See the concept of whole blood and half blood (in regard to “degrees of prohibited relationship” in Special Marriage Act). Because it wouldn’t be full blood, a marriage between lesbians cannot be read.Many provisions will become impossible to reconcile by simply transforming men and women into separate human beings, and this full blood will inevitably have an impact on succession.
However, these are universal laws. These were accepted so long as they weren’t codified. That was the rule of law. One may understand if you’re leading up to this and claiming that the state has an interest in this connection. The state has interests that are lawful in some cases.
It is estimated that as many as 160 clauses would be impacted by the legalisation of such unions, resulting in “irreconcilable” discrepancies in the nation’s legal system.
Reasoning – The orientation of your sexuality or your right to privacy as a person will never be taken into account in any way when it comes to getting married, having relationships that are forbidden, or dissolving a marriage. All of these are governed by legal restrictions. Therefore, it would be absurd for anyone to even suggest to us that because my orientation is so absolute, I can engage in incest. This will never be accepted by a court.
Judgement – The solicitor general’s arguments, according to CJI, are excessively speculative.
Provisions used in the case – Section 377 IPC
Case – Supriyo v. Union of India
Written by – Nikita Shankar
