Top Key Takeaways From Supreme Court's Verdict On Same-Sex Marriage

In a historic ruling, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that there cannot be legal recognition for same-sex marriages, doing so by a 3-2 majority. The verdict was pronounced with 3:2 judgements (Justices S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha and Hima Kohli : CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul).

As many as four judgments were delivered and a slew of observations made by the apex court.

While the court did not grant immediate validation to same-sex marriages, it provided a roadmap for queer rights and highlighted several crucial aspects that need attention.

Recognising Queer Rights and Equality

Chief Justice Chandrachud, who headed the bench, began by emphasising that the court's role is not to create laws but to interpret and enforce existing legislation. He stressed that it is the responsibility of Parliament to consider changes to the Special Marriage Act, which currently does not permit same-sex marriages.

One of the important points highlighted during the proceedings was the need to address discrimination against the queer community. The Chief Justice, while heading the constitution bench, said queer is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elitist.

Sensitising the Public About Queer Rights

The Supreme Court emphasized that governments must take decisive measures to eradicate discrimination when accessing goods and services.

Creating Safe Spaces: The Importance of Hotlines and Safe Houses

"Sensitising the public about queer rights is essential," stated the Chief Justice, adding, "It's imperative to create a hotline for the queer community and establish safe houses for queer couples."

The Intersex Children's Right to Choose

The bench, which includes Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, also issued a crucial order regarding intersex children. It stipulated that no person should be coerced into undergoing hormonal therapy, ensuring a fundamental right to personal choice.

Ensuring Privacy and Dignity

Furthermore, the Supreme Court provided strong directives to the police to protect the rights and dignity of the queer community. They are prohibited from summoning individuals solely to inquire about their sexual identity.

"The police should not compel queer individuals to return to their natal family," the bench emphasized, adding that "a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before registering an FIR against a queer couple related to their relationship."

Protecting Children's Rights and Ensuring Stable Homes

Justice Ravindra Bhat, who read out his dissenting judgment, agreed with the Chief Justice on the right of transgender persons to marry, but disagreed on the adoption aspect. He argued that the objective of Section 57 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which deals with adoption, is to ensure that all children in need of stable homes receive all benefits. He further stated that when a couple separates, a de facto family often plays out, and that the state as a parens patriae has to explore all areas to ensure that all children receive the best possible care.

While the Supreme Court did not grant immediate legal recognition to same-sex marriages, its verdict set the stage for meaningful progress in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.

No legal status to same-sex marriage: Who said what?

Senior advocate Geeta Luthara, representing some petitioners in the marriage equality case, said,"Even if the right to marriage has not been given, CJI has said that the same bundle of rights which every married couple has should be available to same-sex couples."

LGBTQIA+ rights activist Harish Iyer, a petitioner in the case, expressed mixed sentiments, stating, "Although the final verdict did not align with our hopes, numerous observations by the Supreme Court favored our cause. By placing the onus on the Central government, we are urged to engage with our elected representatives and assert our unique identities. The battle for societal equality is ongoing, and we are determined to achieve it."

Anjali Gopalan, another petitioner and activist, said, "Our fight has been long, and we remain steadfast. While the Chief Justice's remarks on adoption were commendable, it is disappointing that other justices did not concur. In a democracy, we cannot deny fundamental rights to our own citizens."

Supreme Court Bar Association president Adish Aggarwala welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, said, "I applaud the Supreme Court's stance in disallowing same-sex marriage."