Gender may be fluid, but for a child, the “idea of mother cannot be”, a host of government bodies led by the Ministry of Women and Child Development told a Constitution Bench. Representational file image.
| Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR
Gender may be fluid, but for a child, the “idea of mother cannot be”, a host of government bodies led by the Ministry of Women and Child Development told a Constitution Bench in the same-sex marriage case on May 10.
The Ministry joined hands with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the Central Adoption Resource Authority to argue that a mother-child cannot be compromised at any cost.
“A gender may be fluid, but the idea of mother cannot be. Benefit under many laws is limited to the definite definition of mother, which is not as certain in the relationship of same-sex or gender-neutral or gender-fluid couples,” Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Ms. Bhati said the idea of gender fluidity could not be allowed to manifest in areas in which special protections or affirmative action had been made for women as a binary gender. She said this would prove detrimental to women.
“Where the purpose and rationale of the Constitution and laws is to protect or recognise a binary gender, none of the non-binary genders can claim parity,” Ms. Bhati contended.
She also argued that all categories of LGBTQIA++ persons cannot be put in a single compartment with a single remedy for all purposes.
“That would clearly amount to manifest inequality and arbitrariness suffering from the vice of unconstitutionality,” the law officer argued for the government.