Skip to main content

Same-Sex Marriage And Homosexuality In India: An Insight

 Same-Sex Marriage And Homosexuality In India: An Insight

By Nemi Bhavsar

Human sexuality is complicated. Accepting the distinction between desire, behaviour, and individuality affirms the complex nature of sexuality. The fact that these dimensions may not always be consistent in individuals suggests that the issues are complicated. In medical science, terms like homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, and trans-sexuality are used to refer to all related issues, whereas current social usage advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT), which focuses on identities.

Homosexuality in India:

In India, homosexuality has a long history. Homosexuality can be traced back to the Rig-Veda period 1500 BC. The harems (young boys) used to be kept by Hindu nobles and Muslim Nawabs as described in the 'Kamasutra.' However, with the advent of Brahmanism and, later, British Colonialism, these experiences became correlated with hatred. It has long been considered a taboo in India. Most personal laws define marriage as a sacrament and the union of two souls between people of different sexes. Same-sex relationships are viewed as morally wrong and in violation of tradition and religious beliefs. Gay and lesbian marriages are considered unholy because marriage is a personal matter governed by one's religious faith. People in India commonly assume that it is a part of Western culture and that it is a negative influence from other countries. However, it cannot be only considered as a Western practice, because our ancient scriptures and literature reflect a similar concept.

Legal Provision in India:

So far, no such progressive changes have occurred in India, and homosexuals continue to be victims of various forms of violence supported by the state and society. There is no explicit reference to homosexuality or haemophilia in any of India's statute books. It is not possible to prosecute someone for being homosexual or homophilic.

Same-sex marriage in Indian perspective:

When it comes to human and civil rights, many developed countries have embraced same-sex marriage. For a long time, third genders have faced gender discrimination. They have fought tirelessly for legal recognition of their rights. The legal protection of homosexual relationships on an equal footing with heterosexual relationships has now become a necessity. The right to marry is regarded as a human right. However, there is no law or legislation that legally enforces transgender people's rights. But the verdict by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Others made the first attempt to legally recognise their gender and the fundamental rights that all people have regardless of their gender. Moreover, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decriminalised homosexuality in the country about two years ago. Nonetheless, amidst this progressive decision, the Apex Court and the Government failed to address certain issues related to homosexual relationships. One such question deals with 'same-sex marriages.'The verdict is a relief for India's LGBTQ community, which has long faced social and state oppression as a result of the antiquated colonial section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which has forced them to live in shame. Many appreciable things were said in this verdict, but to truly secure the rights of the LGBTQ community, legal recognition of same-sex marriages should be one of the nexus. Denying a person the freedom and choice to marry the person of their choice is a strict violation of fundamental rights and has serious constitutional implications. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Shakti Vahini vs Union of India that if the right to.Express one's own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness. When two adults marry out of volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so, and it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.Though this judgment was delivered in the context of Khap panchayats and honour killing, it highlights the constitutional right to free choice and the right to marry as fundamental rights protected by Articles 19 and 21. In International Convention, even Article 16 of Human Rights Charter6 also recognizes, 'right to marry' as a universal right.

Opposing same-sex marriage: A Legal Discrimination

Section-377 discriminates against people gender and sexuality, which is prohibited by Article-15 of the Constitution. Article 15 forbids discrimination based on a variety of grounds, including gender. Article 15 establishes that there is no standard behavioural pattern associated with gender by prohibiting sex discrimination. Section-377's prohibition on non-procreative sexual acts prescribes traditional sexual relations for men and women. The legal principle of establishing a public code of sexual morality has no reasonable relationship to the classification established. Furthermore, the section's very purpose is ambiguous, unreasonable, discriminatory, arbitrary, and based on the stereotyped concept that sex is only for sexual reproduction.Section-377 violates the personal guarantee of civil laws for gay men and lesbians, as well as having other negative impacts: Section-292 of the IPC punishes obscenity; the current definition of obscenity may incriminate gay and lesbian texts. Because male homosexuality is a criminal penal offence, the assumption is that it is something depraved that can corrupt people's minds and bodies.

Conclusion:

Marriage is interpreted differently in different cultures. It is primarily an institution that seeks to recognise an individual's personal connections, such as family and sexual relationships. It is clear that homosexuals face discrimination and hatred, as well as isolation from social structure. Homosexuality is not a crime; it is simply a way of worldly desires, a way to achieve sexual happiness or desire. Apart from narrow mindedness, there is no reason why two gay people should not be married in a wedding ceremony that grants them the same rights and security as heterosexual couples.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more