In a significant and widely anticipated verdict, the Supreme Court of India has refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The ruling, delivered by a five-judge constitution bench, has stirred discussions about the intersection of individual rights and societal interests. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre in this case, shared his insights on the judgment.
The court's decision is grounded in the belief that altering the law to validate same-sex unions falls within the purview of the Parliament, not the judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that this ruling marks a crucial milestone in the jurisprudential development of the separation of powers, providing a profound glimpse into how the Parliament, Executive, and Judiciary collaborate in harmony according to the Constitution.
While refusing to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court made it clear that discrimination against queer individuals must not be tolerated. The court held that there is no unqualified right to marriage for same-sex couples under the Constitution, yet it affirmed the principle of non-discrimination. The bench expressed that the Centre's assertion that the pleas for legal validation of same-sex marriage were an urban elitist concept was unfounded. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asserted that queerness transcends urban and elite boundaries.
The court reiterated that its role is to interpret laws, not to create them, emphasizing that any changes to the Special Marriage Act should be the prerogative of the Parliament. Furthermore, the court did not recognize the right for same-sex couples to jointly adopt children, raising complex questions about family rights and responsibilities.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta welcomed the verdict, stating, "I wholeheartedly welcome the judgment. I am happy that my stand has been accepted. All four judgments have taken the jurisprudence of our nation and the intellectual exercise which went into writing the judgments to the next level. There are very few courts in the world where one can expect this level of intellectual and scholarly judicial exercise. This judgment would be read across jurisdictions."
The Supreme Court's decision reflects the ongoing global debate on the recognition of same-sex marriages and the evolving nature of legal rights for the LGBTQ+ community. It underscores the importance of the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and the need for legislative action to address complex social and legal issues.
While the verdict may not have legalized same-sex marriage in India, it has raised fundamental questions about individual rights, non-discrimination, and the responsibility of the legislative branch to enact necessary changes. This ruling will undoubtedly continue to shape the legal landscape and spark discussions on LGBTQ+ rights and recognition in India and beyond.
