Overview of the Verdict
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud pronounced the verdict on a batch of petitions filed by gay couples seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act.
The bench, also comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat, Ajay Rastogi, Vikram Nath and Surya Kant, delivered a 3:2 split decision. The CJI and Justice Vikram Nath formed one side, while Justices Bhat and Rastogi formed the other side. Justice Surya Kant took a middle path.
Petitioners' Arguments
The petitioners had argued that the rights granted to LGBTQIA+ persons by the Supreme Court in the Navtej Singh Johar case should be extended to partner rights like marriage, adoption, surrogacy etc. They contended that the non-recognition of same-sex marriages violated their fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and privacy.
The petitioners sought equal rights for LGBTQIA+ couples in the areas of finance, insurance, medical decisions, inheritance, succession, adoption, and surrogacy. They argued that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage laws violated principles of equality, liberty, and dignity.
Reactions to the Verdict
Solicitor General's Response
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the pleas for legalising same-sex marriage, stating that it would require wider consultation and that the court should leave it to Parliament to take a call on the "social and cultural issue".
Arvind Narrain's Comments
Arvind Narrain, PUCL state president, expressed disappointment at the SC's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. He said the verdict fell short of the Navtej Johar judgment's promise of equal citizenship to LGBTQIA+ persons.
Top Cleric's Opposition
A prominent Muslim cleric said that while decriminalizing homosexuality was the SC's prerogative, legalizing same-sex marriage would not be acceptable in Islam. He termed homosexuality as 'unnatural'.
One of the Petitioners' Perspective
LGBTQIA+ rights activist Harish Iyer, one of the petitioners, said that while it was a long fight, the verdict granted limited rights. He vowed to continue the legal battle for full marriage equality.
Supreme Court Bar Association President's Statement
The SC Bar Association president termed the verdict historic and said it granted rights while maintaining judicial restraint on an issue of personal law.
Key Points of the Verdict
- No legal recognition for same-sex marriages: The court refused to legally recognize marital rights of same-sex couples under existing laws.
- No constitutional right to civil unions: The bench held that there exists no constitutional or fundamental right to seek recognition of same-sex unions as a civil union, marriage or peaked partnership.
- High-powered committee to examine concerns: The SC directed the Centre to constitute a high-powered committee to examine same-sex couples' concerns including inheritance, adoption, surrogacy etc.
- No right for queer couples to jointly adopt: The court said the issue of adoption by LGBTQIA+ couples required further debate and that it could not be gone into in the proceedings.
Justice Ravindra Bhat's Disagreement
Justice S Ravindra Bhat disagreed with CJI DY Chandrachud's view that the court could not issue any directions to the government on the Special Marriage Act.
Justice Bhat said that the apex court could always issue mandamus to the government if there was inaction on ensuring citizens' rights.
CJI's Statements
Marriage as a Changing Institution
CJI Chandrachud underlined that the concept of marriage has undergone a change over time. He said that the LGBTQIA+ community has as much right to live with dignity as other citizens.
Right to Intimate Association
The CJI linked the right to choose a partner to the constitutional rights to privacy, dignity and autonomy intrinsic in Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.
Parliament's Role
CJI Chandrachud asserted that any change to statutes like the Special Marriage Act to legalize same-sex marriage had to come from the Parliament, not courts.
Special Marriage Act
The CJI held that the Act did not violate constitutional provisions if interpreted to mean a man and a woman.
Human Traits and Judicial Legislation
CJI Chandrachud said that addressing human traits like desire and sexuality required sensitive articulation of rights by the legislature, not judges.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's split verdict grants limited rights while denying full marriage equality to the LGBTQIA+ community. It is a bittersweet moment, with the court recognizing same-sex couples' right to live with dignity but refusing to legalize same-sex marriage. The verdict underscores the judiciary's self-imposed restraint in a domain requiring legislative intervention. While the LGBTQIA+ community sees it as a step forward, the road to equal marital rights remains long and arduous.
Comments
Post a Comment