Same-sex marriage: The Supreme Court on October 17 declined to give same-sex marriages legal recognition in India. The five-judge constitution bench came to a unanimous conclusion that there was no basic right to marry. The SC declared that it had sent Parliament the ruling on same-sex marriage legislation.
However, among the panel of judges, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud argued in favour of the recognition of same-sex partnerships.
Reading between the lines reveals that there is much to celebrate despite the Supreme Court's decision neither to legalize same-sex unions nor provide gay couples the ability to adopt. The case's petitioners have also taken note of the several arguments the judges made in support of the queer community.
What is in favour of the same-sex marriage verdict?
The five-judge bench's refusal to recognize same-sex unions is not motivated by a fundamental disagreement with marriage equality, but rather by legal nuances and concerns with judicial legislation.
In response to the centre's argument during the case hearing, all of the judges agreed that queer couples are neither urban nor elite.
The justices took note of the centre's proposal that the cabinet secretary would chair a group that would examine the practical challenges such as the Provident Fund and pension faced by same-sex couples.
What did judges disagree on?
CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice SK Kaul made the case that same-sex couples ought to be allowed to adopt children while the majority opinion (Justices S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha) said that non-heterosexual couples cannot be granted the right to jointly adopt a child.
According to the majority, there cannot be a legally enforceable civil union right. According to the CJI, the Constitution guarantees the right of LGBTQ people to form unions. Sexual orientation cannot be a factor in determining one's ability to form unions.
