Chakravorty: Is it in the best interest of the child to not have a relationship with their second parent? Petitioners are part of historically oppressed minority...deserve as much dignity & protection as opposite sex couple.
Chakravorty: Children, orphans...have right to have a family. Exclusion of same gender couples & transgender persons defeats very purpose of adoption which is to provide a stable, loving family.
Chakravorty: I will show that CARA circular even bars queer persons in their individual capacities to adopt. They are prevented from adopting because they are in a live-in relationship with their partner.
Adv Amritananda Chakravorty begins her submission.
"Restricting joint adoption only to heterosexual couples is discriminatory. They have the option to marry, but LGBTQ couples don't. Discrimination based on sexual orientation."
Nundy: When it comes to the question of having children, it is true that not all couples choose to procreate. But, as a married couple, having a child is part of human experience...Something that [queer] couples may long for.
Nundy: Let us be blessed just as heterosexual couples are...Not elite at all. So many people have called me...from Hissar, Chhattisgarh, Surat...Let the union bless us just as they do any other couple.
"Centre says this would play havoc with personal laws. But we are also part of our community & our society. Our parents also long to see the day we get married. Let us be blessed just as any other couple," says Adv Arundhati Katju.
Nundy: Your Lordships should not presume any difficulty which arises for LGBTQ couples. Union says such couples would play havoc with personal laws. But we are part of our community & our society.
Nundy: Section 21A must continue to apply to Hindu LGBTQ couples, can be no per se exclusion of Hindu couples who choose to remain within their faith...In 50 yrs, this provision has not created any difficult.
Bhat J: Organic whole has to be considered in statutory application. You have argued many battles will be fought later. Does it absolve us of our constitutional obligation of doctrinally considering impact of provisions inter se?