The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that there cannot be legal recognition for same-sex marriages, doing so by a 3-2 majority. As many as four judgments were delivered and a slew of observations made by the apex court.
On May 11, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, reserved its verdict on the pleas after a marathon hearing of 10 days.
During the marathon hearings, petitioners through senior advocates including Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Raju Ramachandran, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, KV Viswanathan, Saurabh Kirpal, and Menaka Guruswamy stressed on the equality rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and pushed to acknowledge such a union which would ensure LGBTQIA lead a “dignified” life like heterosexuals.
Meanwhile, the Centre had opposed the pleas arguing that the legislative policy of India has consciously validated a union only between a biological man and a biological woman. On May 3, the Centre told the top court it would constitute a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to examine administrative steps that could be taken to address “genuine concerns” of same-sex couples without going into the issue of legalising their marriage.
India’s Bharatiya Janata Party government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, opposed the petition, arguing the issue should be left to parliament and that the appeal represented an urban and elitist perspective.
Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud said on Tuesday that it was outside the court’s remit to decide the issue and that parliament should write the laws governing marriage.
“The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain,” Chandrachud said.
However, Chandrachud said the state should still provide some legal protections to same-sex couples, arguing that denying them “benefits and services” granted to heterosexual couples violates their fundamental rights.
“Choosing a life partner is an integral part of choosing one’s course of life,” he said.
“Some may regard this as the most important decision of their life. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 (of India’s constitution).”
Chandrachud said the government should also take steps to ensure LGBT people do not face discrimination, including by establishing hotlines and safe houses for those who are vulnerable and ending medical procedures that aim to change gender identity or sexual orientation.
The court’s ruling follows a petition arguing that the failure to recognise same-sex unions violated LGBTQ people’s constitutional rights.
MDW Live! News Network 
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that there cannot be legal recognition for same-sex marriages, doing so by a 3-2 majority. As many as four judgments were delivered and a slew of observations made by the apex court.
On May 11, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, reserved its verdict on the pleas after a marathon hearing of 10 days.
During the marathon hearings, petitioners through senior advocates including Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Raju Ramachandran, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, KV Viswanathan, Saurabh Kirpal, and Menaka Guruswamy stressed on the equality rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and pushed to acknowledge such a union which would ensure LGBTQIA lead a “dignified” life like heterosexuals.
Meanwhile, the Centre had opposed the pleas arguing that the legislative policy of India has consciously validated a union only between a biological man and a biological woman. On May 3, the Centre told the top court it would constitute a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to examine administrative steps that could be taken to address “genuine concerns” of same-sex couples without going into the issue of legalising their marriage.
India’s Bharatiya Janata Party government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, opposed the petition, arguing the issue should be left to parliament and that the appeal represented an urban and elitist perspective.
Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud said on Tuesday that it was outside the court’s remit to decide the issue and that parliament should write the laws governing marriage.
“The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain,” Chandrachud said.
However, Chandrachud said the state should still provide some legal protections to same-sex couples, arguing that denying them “benefits and services” granted to heterosexual couples violates their fundamental rights.
“Choosing a life partner is an integral part of choosing one’s course of life,” he said.
“Some may regard this as the most important decision of their life. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 (of India’s constitution).”
Chandrachud said the government should also take steps to ensure LGBT people do not face discrimination, including by establishing hotlines and safe houses for those who are vulnerable and ending medical procedures that aim to change gender identity or sexual orientation.
The court’s ruling follows a petition arguing that the failure to recognise same-sex unions violated LGBTQ people’s constitutional rights.
Share this: