Presenting itself as a “mouthpiece of the common men”, the Bar Council of India (BCI) passed a resolution urging the Supreme Court to leave the issue of same-sex marriage to the legislature. The intent to respect the division of power among the wings of government was perhaps not the only motivation that drove the council to pass the resolution. The BCI made its bias amply clear as it claimed that “more than 99.9 per cent of people of the country are opposed to the idea of recognising same-sex marriage.” On what data or survey this lofty-looking number is arrived at is not very clear. The BCI’s argument that the SC should leave the matter to legislature doesn’t hold much water. It may be pertinent here to note that the petitioners have approached the apex court on the grounds that denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is discriminatory and violates the fundamental rights, privacy and dignity of the LGBTQIA+ community. As is well known, the Supreme Court, being the guardian of the Indian Constitution, is unequivocally placed to hear the cases related to infringement of fundamental rights. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, also argued that “when you deny me the right of marriage, you deny me citizenship. If you deny me citizenship, you are saying, ‘you’re no good, you’re not equal to a citizen under preamble so you stay where you are.’” It is clear that the denial of marriage choice to individuals on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation violates the fundamental right to life and liberty, thus providing the Supreme Court the mandate to hear the petitions. The question of denial of marriage choice violating the fundamental rights can only be countered through frivolous arguments, like one put forth by the Central government, stating that same-sex marriages represent the “urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance”. This argument is highly flawed. In the first place, a person of any particular sexual orientation can be born in any family of the country, irrespective of caste and economic class. How can then the movement for legitimising same-sex marriages be narrowed down to the interests of just the elites? It is merely an attempt to trivialise an issue which is not trivial by any account. It may be true that a majority of the crusading voices have come from well-off sections of society, but it does not mean that the plight of LGBTQIA+ community is not prevalent in rural and semi-urban pockets. The taboo against the LGBTQIA+ recognition in the hinterlands is simply so profound that either the dissenting voices don’t emerge out or are crumbled when they try to. Even a cursory glance on news reports would be enough to highlight the plight of, and discrimination against, the LGBTQIA+ community, particularly when it comes to same-sex marriages. The plight and discrimination have been continuing for quite a long time, and the obstacles that have accumulated in layers are hard to break. The social and political inertia against the legitimisation of same-sex marriages get manifested in arguments alarming against the risks to family system, social fabric and cultural make-up of the country. Just like the Central government, the BCI, too, has termed the subject of same-sex marriage as highly sensitive, and has ironically appealed to the apex court to “appreciate and respect the sentiments and mandate of the mass of the country.” The Supreme Court has been breaking barriers on this front, and should not relent in future as well. The apex court must exercise its jurisdiction to come out with a rational and socio-legally sound verdict. Even if the final verdict goes in favour of the LGBTQIA+ community, the social and political inertia is proof that they will still have a long distance to cover. Generating social acceptance, reimagining and restructuring workplaces and imparting political weight to the issue will be still more complex battles. Let’s not delay what is already delayed!