After 21 activists brought the plea before the Supreme Court earlier this year, they argued they were being discriminated against because they couldn't lawfully marry. HADID: That appeared a rebuke of the Indian government's solicitor general, who described same-sex marriage as urban elitist in a submission against legalizing the unions. Chandrachud had said same-sex relationships were part of India's history.ĭ Y CHANDRACHUD: Queerness is a natural phenomenon known to India since ancient times. ![]() I believe this moment presents an opportunity of reckoning with this historical injustice. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL: Non-heterosexual unions and heterosexual union marriages ought to be considered at two sides of the same coin. ![]() But one of the justices, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, made his feelings clear. So what happens next? NPR's Diaa Hadid reports from Mumbai.ĭIAA HADID, BYLINE: In a judgment broadcast live, the justices said the court didn't have the authority to legalize same-sex marriage. The five judges hearing the case ruled that only the Indian parliament could make that decision. The country's top court was going to rule on whether to legalize same-sex marriages, but it didn't happen. ![]() Today was a day that activists in India had been waiting for.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |