Supreme Court asks govt to seek ways to give same-sex couples basic social rights

The apex court has been hearing petitions arguing that denying them the right to marry violated their fundamental rights and resulted in discrimination and exclusion.

Directing the government to see how it could address some of these issues without granting marital status to same-sex couples, the court told the Solicitor General to come back with a response on Wednesday.

"We take your point that if we enter this arena, this will be an arena of the legislature. So, now what? What does the government want to do with 'cohabitory' relations? And how a sense of security and social welfare is made? And to ensure that such relations are not ostracised?" Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented a hypothetical situation to the court where a man might argue that he is attracted to his sister, claim his right of choice, and challenge the taboo on incest.

"Kindly visualize this - from the very beginning I am attracted to those persons who are mentioned in the degree of prohibited relationships. Incest is not uncommon but prohibited worldwide," Mehta told the bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud.

"I am attracted to my sister... We are consenting adults entering into activities within privacy. And we claim our right of autonomy, right of choice... based on that, can someone not challenge that why this restriction?" he said.

Justice Chandrachud asked where the degrees of these prohibited relationships come from and if they are from the Hindu law.  "Sagothra and Sapinda- that is now codified," Mehta responded.

The judges, however, said the situation posited by the Solicitor General is "far-fetched" and that there are certain "universal rules" where the state interest in personal relationships is legitimate.

The Centre also appeared to be under the impression that the petitioners seeking legalisation of gay marriage were arguing that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. But its representative was set right by Justice Chandrachud.

"They say sexual orientation is given to me. They say that I'm entitled to my autonomy by virtue of my sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice but a matter of immutable features- that's the argument," Justice Chandrachud said.