In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of India has declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, affirming that the authority to create such institutions and grant them legal validation rests solely with the Parliament and state legislatures. This verdict, delivered by a constitution bench of five judges led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, has sparked a range of reactions and discussions regarding LGBTQ+ rights and legislative authority.The unanimous decision was accompanied by an acknowledgment that the courts cannot issue a positive directive to the legislature to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages. This ruling emphasized the separation of powers and the constitutional role of the legislative branch in shaping marriage laws.
The judgment has several key implications and notable elements:
1. High-Powered Committee Approval:The Supreme Court unanimously approved the establishment of a high-powered committee proposed by the Centre to examine the concerns of same-sex couples and propose corrective measures. This indicates that the court recognizes the need to address the rights and concerns of LGBTQ+ individuals, albeit outside the scope of marriage.
2. No Amendments to Special Marriage Act: The verdict refrained from amending or modifying the provisions of the Special Marriage Act to include non-heterosexual couples. However, the court made it clear that queer couples have the right to cohabit without fear of violence, coercion, or interference.
3. Divided Opinions on Civil Unions: The judges differed on the question of whether non-heterosexual couples have the right to form civil unions with legal enforceability. The majority ruled that there is no fundamental right to marriage, and thus, no right to civil union. This divergence in opinion highlights the complexity of LGBTQ+ rights in the legal landscape.
4. Joint Adoption Rights Denied: By majority vote, the court also denied non-heterosexual couples the right to jointly adopt a child, further emphasizing the legal constraints on same-sex couples in India.
This case, which followed a ten-day hearing in March and April, was brought forward by a diverse group of petitioners, including same-sex couples, rights activists, social workers, and organizations. They challenged existing marriage laws' constitutionality, arguing that these laws deny same-sex couples the right to marry under the current legal framework.
The Union government argued that legislative policy and state interests validate only heterosexual marriages, defending the existing legal framework. They contended that same-sex marriages could disrupt the balance of personal laws in India and contradict cultural and societal values.
Despite the court's decision not to legalize same-sex marriage, this case has reignited debates surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and the need for comprehensive legal recognition. It highlights the struggle to bridge the gap between individual rights and societal acceptance, and the role of the legislative branch in shaping laws that reflect changing social norms. The establishment of a high-powered committee to address the concerns of same-sex couples is a notable step forward in acknowledging these rights, even in the absence of full legal recognition.
