Urban elitist? When SI Manjit Kaur married a woman with family's consent

At the wedding, attended by family members and friends amidst media glare, the police official donned the traditional red turban and her bride came riding on a chariot. It was solemnised as per Hindu rituals.

The 'couple' got worldwide applause not just from the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgenders and queer) community, but also from celebrities.

While petitioners argue for equality and the Centre opposes on grounds of maintainability, Amnesty International responded by saying the Indian government's current position "opposing the recognition of same-sex marriage means that same-sex couples like Uday and Parth are being denied their right to marriage, with only one of the two legally recognised as their children's father.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who represents petitioner Kaajal, a Dalit woman from Punjab, and her partner Bhavna, an OBC woman from Haryana, informed the apex court that they are proof that same-sex marriage is not an "urban elitist concept".

Terming the Centre's statement "careless, unnecessary, and insensitive", Ramachandran said, "The institution of marriage is not just the gateway to socio-economic rights but societal protection from their own parental families. Such couples do not have enlightened parents, they do not have understanding families."

A senior advocate with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, requesting anonymity owing to the issue being sub judice, told IANS that petitions are coming up in the High Court to provide protection to same sex couples, who claim they were threatened by their families.

In most of the cases the High Court is ordering the police to decide their pleas on the threat perception.

"But the issue of same-sex marriage needs lots of deliberation. To me the court should not give any verdict unless people and experts are involved," he added.

Last month the High Court directed the Chandigarh police to consider the plea of two women seeking protection of life and liberty as their families did not approve of their intention of solemnizing their same-sex marriage.

Counsel for the petitioners, who are in their early 20s, in a plea said both are well educated and "residing together in a live-in relationship". They have not solemnized the marriage as same sex-marriage has not been legalized.

Quoting Article 21 of the Constitution that specifically provides that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law, Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill said the state cannot shirk its duty to ensure the safety of its citizens.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill observed, "In case, a citizen has a genuine apprehension of being caused any harm, the same certainly needs to be examined."

In June 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered police protection for a same-sex male couple.

In their petition placed before Justice Vikas Suri, a 24-year-old army official and a 36-year-old father of two sought protection of life and liberty, contending they "developed a strong inclination/liking towards each other".

Their counsel pleaded that the army official (then on leave) was constantly threatened by the family with dire consequences if he did not end his 'friendship'.

The two wished to continue their friendship further without any interference and fear of society and the army man's family.

The Bench was also told that the army man was "unmarried", but his friend was married for the last about 13 years. He had a son and a daughter.

While disposing off the petition, Justice Suri directed the Punjab police to consider and decide their representation. He made it clear the matter was required to be dealt with expeditiously and in accordance with the law.

If India legalizes same-sex marriage, it would be the 35th country to do so.

(Vishal Gulati can be contacted at gulatiians@gmail.com)

Disclaimer: This story has not been edited by the Sakshi Post team and is auto-generated from syndicated feed.