CJI Refuses Legal Sanction On Same Sex Marriages But Favours Adoption Rights

A Supreme Court bench on Tuesday rejected the pleas seeking the legalisation of same-sex marriages in India, a blow for the queer community that denies tens of millions of LGBT+ couples the right to marry their partners.

Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, while delivering the verdict, announced that there are a total of four judgments: one authored by him, and the remaining three by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, and PS Narasimha. He further noted, "There exists a certain level of consensus, but there are also areas of dissent among the judgments."

In a groundbreaking statement, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud shattered prevalent stereotypes by affirming that homosexuality and queerness are not restricted to urban settings or the upper echelons of society. He emphasised, "It applies not only to English-speaking white-collar professionals but is equally relevant to a woman engaged in agricultural work in a village."

CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that characterising marriage as a static and unchanging institution would be inaccurate. He pointed out that legislative Acts have historically introduced reforms in the institution of marriage.

He further noted, "Nullifying the Special Marriage Act would regress the country to a pre-Independence era. Conversely, if the Court chooses the second approach and interprets the SMA, it would encroach upon legislative territory."

Chief Justice Chandrachud underlined, "The Court lacks the tools necessary to ascribe meaning to the statute."

He reiterated, "The matter of altering the framework of the Special Marriage Act is within the purview of Parliament."

CJI DY Chandrachud emphasized, "Parliament is responsible for deciding if changes to the Special Marriage Act are necessary, and our Court must exercise prudence to avoid intruding into the legislative domain."

CJI also stressed, "The right to form a union includes the right to choose one's life partner and the entitlement to have that union officially recognized."

He continued by stating, "The failure to recognise such partnerships would lead to discrimination against LGBTQ+ couples. The Solicitor General informed the court that the Union plans to establish a committee to explore the rights that can be granted to such couples."

CJI Chandrachud underscored, "To fully enjoy these relationships, these unions must receive recognition, and the denial of essential goods and services cannot be tolerated. When recognition is withheld, the state indirectly infringes on personal freedoms."

He further pointed out, "The right to enter into a union is also firmly rooted in Article 19(1)(e)."

CJI Chandrachud highlighted, "Selecting a life partner is an integral aspect of shaping one's life. For many, this decision is considered one of the most significant in their lives, and this right is intrinsic to the fundamental right to life and liberty, as enshrined in Article 21."

CJI underscored, "Every individual, including those within the LGBTQ+ community, possesses the inherent right to determine the moral quality of their own lives. True liberty means having the freedom to be one's authentic self."

The Chief Justice clarified, "It's essential to recognize that a person's gender is distinct from their sexual orientation."

He further stated, "If a transgender individual is in a heterosexual relationship, the law recognizes such a marriage. Denying similar recognition to same-sex couples would infringe upon their fundamental rights." CJI then turned the focus towards the issue of adoption rights.

CJI made it clear, "The Juvenile Justice Act does not prohibit unmarried couples from adopting. The Union of India has not substantiated that excluding unmarried couples from adoption serves the child's best interests. Therefore, CARA has overstepped its authority by prohibiting unmarried couples from adoption."

Further, the CJI pointed out, "The distinction between married and unmarried couples lacks a reasonable connection to CARA's main goal, which is ensuring the child's best interests."

He emphasised, "It's not reasonable to assume that unmarried couples are less committed to their relationships."

CJI DY Chandrachud added, "There's no evidence on record to support the claim that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child."

He continued, "CARA Regulation 5(3) indirectly discriminates against non-traditional unions. It restricts queer individuals to adopt only as individuals, reinforcing discrimination against the queer community."

CJI DY Chandrachud asserted, "The law cannot presuppose that only heterosexual couples are capable of being good parents. Such an assumption would constitute discrimination. Consequently, the adoption regulations are in violation of the constitution for discriminating against queer couples."

Furthermore, CJI DY Chandrachud noted that he differs in opinion with Justice Ravindra Bhat's judgment.

He clarified, "In contrast to Justice Bhat's judgment, the directives in my judgment do not establish a new institution; rather, they uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in Part 3 of the Constitution."