We don’t go by popular morality or segmental morality: SC on young gay couples wanting to get married

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that we don’t go by either “popular morality or segmental morality” but what the Constitution mandates. The court said so when an argument was advanced before it that young same-sex couples across the country wanted to get married.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and five other judges was hearing arguments on a batch of pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal said that they have spoken to gay people at various seminars and a majority of them came up and said the only thing they want is to get married, during the argument on the seventh day of hearing.
Senior advocate Menaka Goswami while representing the petitioner’s side also said that that young gay couples should be allowed to get married.
Responding to which, the CJI observed that the court can’t go with the feelings of young gay couple as it will be subjected to volumes of data on what other people feel.
“Now, therefore, the great salutary safeguard of constitutional adjudication is that the court has to go by what the constitution mandates,” he said, adding, “and therefore, we don’t go by either popular morality or a segmental morality. We decide what the Constitution says.” “Let us not get into that at all,” the CJI said.
The committee will be formed to consider and look into the administrative measures that could be taken for addressing “genuine humane concerns” of same-sex couples without getting into the debate over legalizing their marriage, according to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the Centre.

The CJI stated during the hearing that the petitioners are asking for the right to marry and that the court is aware that a declaration of the right to marry alone is insufficient unless it is put into practice by a statutory provision that recognizes, governs, and grants entitlement to those who are married.
He claimed that the court can make sure that real advancement in the acceptance of the right to cohabit together by a larger segment of society is made today by serving as a facilitator.

The bench stated that it would be extremely beneficial for the petitioners if they were to gain anything from this exercise.

Mehta argued that the petitioners’ side should only make reference to the factual issues that can be resolved administratively when making their suggestions.