Yesterday the Supreme Court of India directed by a bench of five-judges heard a clutch of petitions relating to same-sex marriages.

Since November, several petitions have been pending before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of several laws that allow for marriage only between heterosexuals. While the petitioners have argued that these provisions are discriminatory against the LGBTQ+ community and infringe on their fundamental right to dignity and privacy, the Centre has opposed these petitions, arguing that marriages can only be between heterosexual.

The petitioners have submitted, infringes a person’s fundamental right against discrimination, which is guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. It also violates their right to freedom of expression under Article 19 and their right to privacy and dignity under Article 21.

The Centre's affidavit filed in the SC firmly opposing legal recognition for same-sex marriages states there are a slew of legislations pertaining to adoption, maintenance, rape, dowry prohibition, cruelty etc., that recognise only hetrosexual couples and these laws cannot be applicable in case of same-sex marriage as it is neither possible nor feasible to term one as 'husband' and the other as 'wife'.

The Supreme Court has decided that the final arguments over legal recognition to same-sex marriages in India will be heard on April 18 by a five-judge Constitution benchm Any decision on the subject would have a huge bearing on society, the Supreme Court commented, calling it " a matter of seminal importance".

"This judgment will have a huge bearing on society - don't cut down anyone's time and this must be considered," a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, said recognizing gay marriages would trigger legal problems.

Representing the petitioners, Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the right to marry could not be withheld from anyone "solely on the basis of their sexual orientation".

"In case the right to marry is extended to this class, it must be extended in equal terms. The Special Marriage Act has to be read in a way to extend to such classes also. Terms such as 'man', 'woman' have to be done away with," Singhvi said.