Same-sex marriage case: Who argued for and against the matter in Supreme Court?

Same sex marriage hearing

The Supreme Court, on May 11, reserved its judgment in a batch of petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The verdict is expected after the court reopens post the summer break in July.

In arguments spread over 10 days, a number of lawyers argued on the batch of petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriage.

While 17 lawyers argued in favour of the court reinterpreting the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to define marriage to mean a relationship between 'persons' as opposed to a man and a woman, 22 lawyers representing mainly the government have said that it is the role of the legislature to pass such a law after holding consultations. The Centre has contended that recognition of same-sex marriage should be debated in Parliament, rather than in court.

As the hearings in the Supreme Court have concluded, Moneycontrol brings you short profiles of some of the lawyers who argued for either side of the case.

For legalisation of same-sex marriage

Menaka Guruswamy

Menaka Guruswamy represented one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case. She was at the forefront of the legal battle in the case pertaining to decriminalisation of homosexuality, holding Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be unconstitutional, in 2018. She was designated a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India in 2019.

A law graduate from the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, Guruswamy pursued her master's in law at Oxford University and Harvard University. She was the BR Ambedkar Research Scholar and Lecturer at Columbia Law School, New York, from 2017 to 2019. Guruswamy has been a Visiting Faculty at the Yale Law School, New York University School of Law, and the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law.

She has appeared in many prominent cases in the Supreme Court. These include the Augusta Westland bribery case, the Salwa Judum case, and the Right to Education case.

Arundhati Katju

Arundhati Katju, who appeared for the petitioners, is also from NLSIU, Bengaluru. She holds a master’s degree in law from Columbia University, New York, where she was a Human Rights Fellow, James Kent Scholar, and a public interest honouree.

Katju played a key role in drafting the main petition in the case that led to decriminalising homosexuality and holding Section 377 of the IPC unconstitutional. She has appeared in many key constitutional cases.

Mukul Rohatgi

Mukul Rohatgi, former attorney general for India, appeared against the government in the same-sex marriage case. One of the most prominent lawyers in the country today, Rohatgi obtained his law degree from Government Law College, Mumbai.

While he has appeared in many prominent cases as the attorney general for India from 2014 to 2017. Rohatgi defended the Gujarat government in many cases arising out of the 2002 riots. In 2022, he defended the report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Gujarat riots case in a plea by Zakia Jaffery against the findings in it. Rohatgi was Aryan Khan’s lawyer, who got him bail from the Bombay High Court in 2021 in the narcotics case.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a top lawyer and politician in the country, appeared for the petitioners in the case. Educated at prominent institutions such as St Columba's School, St Stephen's College, Trinity College, Cambridge and Harvard University, Singhvi has appeared in a variety of important cases.

Singhvi has appeared in various important cases such as the case that led to the entry of women into Sabarimala temple, and the corporate battle between Cyrus Mistry and Ratan Tata. He recently won the case for the Delhi government on control over administrative services in the state. Singhvi also argued for the Uddhav faction in the Supreme Court in a batch of cases relating to the Maharashtra political crisis.

Other prominent lawyers who argued for the petitioners include KV Vishwanathan, Saurabh Kripal, Jayna Kothari, and Karuna Nundy.

Opposing SC hearing the same-sex marriage case

Tushar Mehta

Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, appeared for the Union government in the case. Mehta has the distinction of being a law officer of the government for nine years now. He was appointed Additional Solicitor General at the Supreme Court in 2014, and elevated to the post of Solicitor General in 2018.

A senior advocate from Gujarat, Mehta began his career as a lawyer in 1987. He was appointed Additional Advocate General of Gujarat in 2008. Mehta has appeared in many high-stakes and sensitive government cases. He is also regularly engaged by various state governments to argue their cases in the Supreme Court.

Kapil Sibal

Kapil Sibal, a prominent politician and senior advocate, appeared for Jamiat Ulema E Hind in the same-sex marriage case. He argued that a law pertaining to same-sex marriage is in the realm of parliament and requires a larger public discourse.

Sibal, a law graduate from the University of Delhi and Harvard University, has practised law in Indian courts for half a century now. One of the senior-most members of the bar, Sibal has held several important posts relating to law and administration, including Additional Solicitor General, and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Sibal has been a Union Minister holding multiple portfolios over eight years.

Rakesh Dwivedi

A prominent lawyer in the Supreme Court, Rakesh Dwivedi represented the Madhya Pradesh government in the same-sex marriage case. He argued that heterosexual people have the right to marry as per their personal law, customs, and religion. He submitted that these customs and traditions which have been practised for a long time, are the foundation of their right.

Dwivedi has appeared in many important cases in the Supreme Court. He represented the Tamil Nadu government in the case pertaining to the release of Perarivalan, convicted in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Other prominent lawyers, such as Arvind Datar, appeared for the opposing side in the Supreme Court. ​