Earlier this week, the government told the Karnataka High Court that the Income Tax (I-T) Act cannot be used to legitimise same-sex couples by granting them spousal status to avail of tax exemption. It also made its stand clear that same-sex relationships are not equivalent to marital relationships, and that persons in same-sex relationships are not spouses under the law. There are two issues at the heart of the Union’s submissions. One, the watertight definitions in the Act. Two, the
Earlier this week, the government told the Karnataka High Court that the Income Tax (I-T) Act cannot be used to legitimise same-sex couples by granting them spousal status to avail of tax exemption. It also made its stand clear that same-sex relationships are not equivalent to marital relationships, and that persons in same-sex relationships are not spouses under the law. There are two issues at the heart of the Union’s submissions. One, the watertight definitions in the Act. Two, the Centre’s stand on same-sex relationships. To conflate the two would be a disservice to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Intersex Asexual (LGBTQIA) community, which deserves equality and access guaranteed in the Constitution, to all citizens.
The 1961 Act is clear: Section 56, which deals with Other Incomes, underlines that any sum of money received from a “relative” can be excluded from the scope of “income from other sources”; and, in a very specific list of who constitutes a relative, “spouse” is included. In other words, the number of relatives who can avail such exemption is narrowly specified. A first cousin, for instance, cannot. But a grandparent or a child — a lineal ascendant or descendant — can.
The question before the court is this: Is the I-T Act, with its specific definitions, the right channel to open up a conversation on the definition of spouse? The Centre argued that this would open up space for tax evasion. That argument may or may not hold. What is clear is that same-sex couples need a structure through which they can transfer wealth and assets to each other without being penalised or taxed. But to expect a challenge to the I-T Act to reopen the debate on same-sex spousehood — three years after the Supreme Court adjudicated on it in its Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr v Union of India — might be a stretch, however well-intended. All the same, the petition is an urgent reminder of the need for an overarching blanket of rights for the LGBTQIA community.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website