Petition updateLegal recognition/ registration of Indian LGBTQIA+ marriages #conQUEERingLegalRightsThe Court hearing on ‘Legalisation of Indian LGBTQIA+ marriages’ is postponed to 27th August 2021.
Shrushti ManeMumbai, India
Jul 9, 2021

The Court hearing on ‘Legalisation of Indian LGBTQIA+ marriages’ is postponed to 27th August 2021 (IST) along with the other pleas listed for hearing in The Delhi High Court.

Recently, a 5th new petition was filed in addition to the 4 existing cases seeking ‘Legal recognition of Indian LGBTQIA+ marriages’. This new petition filed by Joydeep Sengupta - a Canadian citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder and his partner Russell Blaine Stephens asking for Legal recognition of their marriage under the Citizenship Act, the Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act. This petition is merged with the existing petitions. The Delhi High Court issued a notice regarding this new petition and has scheduled the next hearing on this matter for 27th August 2021 (IST).

One petition, filed by LGBTQ+ individuals Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar, G Oorvasi, and Giti Thadani, argues that the conception of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act allows for same-sex marriages. “Section 5 of the Act clearly lays down that marriage can be performed between ‘any two Hindu individuals’ under the Act,” the petitioners contend.


Under the ‘Special Marriage Act, a petition has been filed by two individuals - Kavita Arora and Ankita Khanna. They tried to register their marriage under SMA in September 2020, but the relevant Court officer refused to do so. They argue that this is discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is impermissible under Article 15 of the Constitution, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2018 striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).


Under the ‘Foreign Marriage Act’, a petition was filed by two individuals, Vaibhav Jain and Parag Vijay Mehta. They got married in the USA in 2017, but when they approached the consulate to register their marriage under the FMA, their request was refused.

Similar arguments were made regarding discrimination and other violations of constitutional protections, citing the Section 377 judgment.

Copy link
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Email
X