Supreme Court rules 5-0 against same-sex marriage, 3-2 against adoption
Supreme Courts RulesĀ :
In a blow to the campaign for the equal treatment of people of alternative sexual orientation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the request to legalize same-sex marriages and grant queer couples the right to adopt.
Supreme Court Despite insisting that being queer is neither urban nor elite, the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul, SR Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha bench's unanimous decision that the right to marry was not a fundamental right and that the legislature had the authority to regulate it in accordance with societal circumstances disappointed the hopeful faces in the courtroom. In a clear statement that the only way to change marriage laws and other related laws to grant same-sex couples the right to wed legally, the bench said it was not up to the court to read down or add language to Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act (SMA) of 1954 that would eliminate the statutorily required man-woman component of marriage. The judges also concurred that a powerful committee, to be established by the government, should look into all matters pertaining to the queer community and weigh their advantages. But there was no more agreement. The overwhelming ruling was against same-sex couples being able to adopt, despite the CJI and Justice Kaul's views to the contrary. An emotional roller coaster in apex court As Chief Justice DY Chandrachud announced on Tuesday that same-sex couples could adopt children, it was an emotional roller coaster. Justice SK Kaul agreed. Following the Supreme Court's denial of same-sex marriage, the LGBTQIA+ community, which included 21 petitioners and other intervenors last year, briefly had some hope for consoling relief. But as the forthright judgments of Justices SR Bhat and Hima Kohli, with whom Justice PR Narasimha agreed, rejecting the adoption rights to same-sex couples, the opinions of the Chief Justice and Justice Kaul became the minority view, their aspirations were dashed. Important passages from each justice's decision were read aloud in front of the court for 45 minutes total. The judges had different opinions on the matter of same-sex couples entering into civil unions that would provide them marriage-like rights, despite the fact that the bench had unanimously determined that the right to marry was not a basic right. In his 247-page ruling, CJI Chandrachud stated that homosexuality is a natural occurrence that has been known to India since ancient times. It is not elite or urban. He did, however, acknowledge that in order to "democratise personal relationships," the state had to legislate marriage. "A basic right to marriage is not explicitly recognized by the Constitution. Based solely on the meaning ascribed to it by law, an institution cannot be elevated to the status of a basic right. Due to institutional constraints, this court cannot invalidate the SMA's constitutionality or add new provisions to it. This court cannot insert words into the SMA's and other related statutes' provisions because doing so would be judicial legislation. In exercising its judicial review authority, the court must stay away from matters that pertain to legislation, especially those that have an impact on policy, he said. A transgender man, according to the CJI and Justice Kaul, could lawfully wed a transgender woman under the SMA. This opinion was agreed to by other three judges. The Chief Justice of India declared, "A person's gender is not the same as their sexuality. A person's gender identification determines whether they are transgender or not. The laws governing marriage would recognize a marriage if a transgender person was in a heterosexual relationship and desired to wed their partner (and if each of them met the other qualifications outlined in the applicable law). This is so that in the marriage, one party would serve as the bride, or the wife, while the other would serve as the bridegroom, or the husband. Justices Bhat and Kohli concurred with the Chief Justice in saying that "there cannot be a per se assertion that there exists an unqualified right to marry which requires treatment as a fundamental freedom." They dissented from the CJI's position, arguing that same-sex couples do not require the designation of civil unions in order to confer the rights that come with being in a marriage-like relationship. Therefore, we disagree with the Chief Justice of India who stated that the positive postulate of various rights leads to the conclusion that everyone has the right to enter into a union or a long-term cohabitation relationship, which the state is required to recognize "to give real meaning" to the right. Justices Bhat and Kohli agreed. Justice Narasimha shared their viewpoint. Justices Bhat and Kohli stated in reference to the Navtej Johar decision that decriminalized same-sex relationships: "Previous judgments of this court have established that queer and LGBTQ+ couples, too, have the right to union or relationship (under Article 21) - "be it mental, emotional or sexual," flowing from the right to privacy, right to choice, and autonomy. This does not, however, grant any claim to a legal standing for the aforementioned union or partnership. The legislature needed to address the question of how LGBT couples may obtain legal status for their relationships, according to Justice Bhat. "The state, in this case the legislature and the administration, needs to use its power in furtherance of the modalities of how it should play out, what it would involve, etc. Now, how this will play out on India's democratic stageāwhether through purposeful state action or as a result of persistent citizen mobilizationācan only be determined with time. ALSO READ THIS : IOC Session: PM Narendra Modi confirms Indiaās bid to host 2036 Olympics, says nation will leave āno stone unturnedā Read the full article
