‘Not a good law’: Center challenges Supreme Court ruling on adultery and same-sex relationships

NEW DELHI: The Center on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the landmark verdict decriminalizing adultery and same-sex consensual relations was based on a “subjective” interpretation of constitutional morality and should be considered “not a good law”.“The submissions were made during the hearing of a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on petitions related to religious freedom, including the Sabarimala temple issue, news agency PTI reported.Appearing before the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that “constitutional morality” is a vague concept and cannot be an independent criterion for judicial review of laws. In a democracy, the law reflects the will of the majority, raising questions about how morality is defined in this context, he said.Referring to the 2018 judgments in the Joseph Shine case (abolition of adultery laws) and Navtej Singh Johar case (decriminalization of homosexuality), Mehta expressed concern over the reliance on foreign legal works and academic opinions in the court’s judgments.He believes that elevating constitutional morality to legal standards violates the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, and may also conflict with Article 13 of the Constitution.The Center also urged the court to declare the reasoning in the Joseph Shine judgment “not a good law” while clarifying that it was not challenging the abrogation of Section 497 itself.The bench is currently examining key issues surrounding the scope and moral interpretation of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, including a batch of cases related to the Sabarimala issue.