The resolution was approved by the bar, according to BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, following a meeting with members from all State Bar Councils.

According to recorded history, marriage has traditionally been recognised and categorized as a union of a biological man and woman for the dual purposes of procreation and recreation ever since the beginning of human civilization and culture, according to BCI. Given this context, it would be disastrous for any law court, no matter how well-intentioned, to change how marriage is conceptualized.

According to the Bar Council, courts should normally use the theory of deference when handling matters with social or religious overtones. The legislature is best qualified to handle such delicate matters since it is a true reflection of the will of the people. After learning that this case is still pending before the Supreme Court, every responsible and cautious member of the nation is concerned for the future of his or her children. The idea of same-sex marriage in our country is opposed by more than 99.9% of the population, said the BCI.

The majority of people, according to the Council, think that any ruling in favor of the petitioners by the Apex Court on this matter will be seen negatively by the nation's culture and socio religious framework.

The Chief Justice, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha make up the Constitution Bench, which is tasked with addressing a number of petitions relating to the "marriage equality rights for the LGBTQI community." On April 18, the Constitution Bench began hearing the petitions.

The Supreme Court is addressing several petitions that ask for the legal recognition of same-sex unions. The petitions were rejected by the Centre. One of the early petitions brought out the lack of a legal framework that let members of the LGBTQ community to marry whoever they choose. The petition claims that the pair wanted to uphold LGBTQ people's fundamental freedom to marry anybody they chose, adding that "The exercise of which ought to be insulated from the disdain of legislative and popular majorities."

The petitioners additionally argued that they had a basic right to wed one another and asked this Court for the proper instructions to enable them to do so.