New Delhi – In a historic and closely-watched decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that same-sex marriage will not be granted legal validity. A five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud, came to this conclusion with a 3-2 majority vote.
This verdict, which has stirred both applause and controversy, establishes that permission for same-sex marriage can only be granted through legislative means, and the judiciary cannot interfere in matters related to the creation of laws. The decision comes after 10 days of intense hearings, with the court reserving its judgment on May 11.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, expressed his approval of the Supreme Court’s verdict, stating, “I welcome the decision wholeheartedly. I am happy that my stand has been accepted. All four judgments took our country’s jurisprudence and the intellectual exercise of judgment writing to the next level. This decision will be read in all jurisdictions. They balance the interests of individuals with civil society.”
Mehta also emphasized the importance of this ruling in the context of the separation of powers, providing insights into the workings of the Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary, as complementary branches of governance under the Indian Constitution.
Mehta highlighted the complexity of legalizing same-sex marriage and suggested the possibility of the Centre establishing a high-level panel to address the issue, emphasizing that the right to choose a partner does not automatically entail the right to marry without adhering to established legal procedures.
In its decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that there is no inherent right to marriage except where it is recognized by law. The conferral of legal status to a civil union can only be accomplished through enacted legislation. Transsexual individuals in homosexual relationships were granted the right to marry under this ruling.
Justice Ravindra Bhatt, however, expressed disagreement with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s stance, particularly regarding the right of same-sex couples to adopt a child. He raised concerns over this issue and stated,
“The Court cannot put the State under any obligation when there is no constitutional right to marriage or legal recognition of unions between non-heterosexual couples.”
Justice Bhatt contended, “There cannot be an unqualified right to marry, which can be treated as a fundamental right. Although we agree that there is a right to a relationship, we clearly hold that it comes under Article 21. This includes the right to choose a partner and enjoy physical relations with them, which includes the right to privacy and autonomy.”
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul added that non-opposite-sex marriages also have constitutional protection rights. He emphasized the importance of maintaining the autonomy of marriage while ensuring it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to form a committee to determine the rights and eligibility of individuals in same-sex marriages.
This committee is tasked with considering the inclusion of homosexuals as a family on ration cards, extending rights related to joint bank accounts, pensions, gratuities, and more. The report generated by this committee will be examined at the central government level.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized that there should be no restrictions on individuals with different sexual orientations coming together. He asserted that transgender people in opposite-sex relationships have the right to marry under existing law. The court also encouraged unmarried couples, including homosexual couples, to jointly adopt children.
The CJI further directed the Central and State Governments to ensure there is no discrimination in access to goods and services for the LGBTQ+ community.
He called for public sensitization regarding gay rights, the establishment of hotlines for the LGBTQ+ community, the creation of safe homes for same-sex couples facing violence, and ensuring that intersex children are not compelled to undergo operations.
The Supreme Court has urged the Central Government and State Governments to conduct awareness campaigns on the rights of homosexuals and to prevent discrimination against them.
In a groundbreaking statement, the Chief Justice asserted that the ability to choose one’s life partner is intricately linked to the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He stressed the importance of providing equal rights to all, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
He concluded by cautioning against undue interference in legislative matters, emphasizing that the judiciary should be cautious about meddling in the realm of creating laws.
While delivering the verdict, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud underscored that, in the protection of fundamental rights, the principle of separation of powers cannot stand in the way of the court issuing directions. The court cannot create laws, but it can interpret and enforce them.
Author
-
by
-
