Summary of arguments petitioner

1. That, excluding LGBTQ couples from the ambit of marriage under the Special
Marriage Act, and the rights and benefits conferred upon the married couples by law,
violate Articles 14,15 and 21.

The principle of right to equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is

violated in case of class legislation. However, reasonable classification is allowed
given that it based on an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object of
the act. Here, there is no rational nexus of excluding same-sex couples from SMA as
the object of SMA was to provide an alternative to couples who cannot marry under
personal laws. Moreover, the exclusion is based on the ground of sexual orientation
which is covered under the term ‘sex’ used in Article 15, as one of the prohibited
grounds of discrimination. Furthermore, the various rights conferred under right to
life such as the right to live with dignity and the right to personal autonomy are
violated by this exclusion. Lastly, various precedents have held that there is
fundamental right to choose one’s partner and the right to marry which is also
recognized by various international conventions. The exclusion of same sex couples
from the institution of marriage also violates that.

2. That, Zendian Adoption Regulations, 2022 are violative of art 14, 15 and 21 as they
exclude same-sex couples from the ambit and do not permit such couples to adopt.

The object of the regulations is to advance the best interest of children, this has no
rational reason of denying same-sex couples the right to adopt. Moreover, various
studies have been submitted which point towards the conclusion that there is no
substantial difference between the environment provided by same-sex couples from
those of heterosexual couples. Moreover, the regulations discriminate against same-
sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation, which is a ground prohibited by
Article 15. Certain rights conferred upon all citizens under Article 21 such as the right
to adopt and the right to found a family are also being violated by this exclusion.
Lastly, the regulations are ultra vires the Juvenile Justice Act. The JJ Act prescribes no
such eligibility of marriage for the purpose of adoption, whereas the regulations go
beyond their authority and power to prescribe an additional criteria.
3. That, hardships faced by the same sex couples in day to day financial, medical and
other basic streams make out a case for recognition of their relationship as ‘civil
union; if not marriage.

Civil unions are marriage-like where they haven’t been given the status of marriage
but receive the legal rights and recognition by law. In Zendia, the right to enter into a
civil union can be traced to Articlle 19(1)(c) of the Constitution which guarantees all
citizens the right to form associations and unions. Various foreign courts have
undertaken an expansive interpretation of the term ‘associations’ to mean ‘intimate
associations’ as well. Moreover, the landmark case of Navtej Singh Johar also brought
the right to enter into a civil union by the members of LGBTQ community as coming
within the ambit of Article 21. Moreover, the statutory interpretation of beneficial
legislation makes it a duty of the court to interpret provisions in such a way that it
fosters social justice and bridges the gap between law and society.