The court acknowledged that there may be situations other than this “ideal family” having their biological children.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Indian rules allow an individual to adopt a kid regardless of marital status. The country has progressed beyond motherhood and into parenthood, and there are also single parents.
The NCPCR, led by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, argued before a five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, hearing petitions for legal recognition of indian sex hd marriage, that the entire architecture of the laws is to protect the interests and welfare of children who are naturally born to heterosexual people.
It stated that the state is appropriate in treating heterosexuals and homosexuals differently and emphasized that while gender may be “fluid,” motherhood and motherhood are not.
However, the court stated, “There are situations where there is only one father.” We’ve graduated from motherhood to parenthood. There are also lone parents.”
The bench, which also included Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, stated that one can be an adopted kid of only the male, that it is an evolving scene and that what is essential to this and what remains constant is the child’s wellbeing.
The bench hears petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage on the ninth day.
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it must recognize that the concept of marriage has evolved and embrace the core proposition that marriage is entitled to constitutional protection since it is more than just legislative recognition.
It stated it would be “far-fetched” to claim that there is no constitutional right to marry, which would be a “tradition breaker.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the ‘Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind,’ a body of Islamic scholars, told the bench on Tuesday that the petitioner’s request for the top court to make a declaration about legal validation for same-sex marriage was a “perilous proposition” because Parliament was unlikely to do anything about it.
“I’m afraid that’s a perilous proposition.” It was stated at the onset that we (petitioners) do not anticipate Parliament to move forward, that Parliament does not expect to adopt such a law, and hence, your lordships should do it. “I believe that is a perilous path to take,” Sibal had stated.