Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Same-Sex Marriage, Advocates for LGBTQ+ Rights
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has unanimously rejected the legalization of same-sex marriage. The court has declared that the right to marriage is not considered a fundamental one and that it lacks the power to alter the provisions of the Special Marriage Act or reinterpret its language. However, the court has emphasized that homosexuality extends beyond urban or elite contexts, highlighting the need to address discrimination faced by the LGBTQ+ community.
The case revolved around a gender-neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act, a secular law designed to facilitate inter-caste and inter-faith marriages. Over a period of ten days, a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud heard the petitions and made the court proceedings accessible to the public through live-streaming, promoting transparency and public interest. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha accompanied Chief Justice Chandrachud on the bench.
Chief Justice Chandrachud’s judgment directed the government to take measures to ensure that the queer community does not face discrimination. These measures include eliminating discrimination in accessing goods and services, raising public awareness about queer rights, establishing a hotline for the queer community, creating safe houses for queer couples, prohibiting unnecessary operations on intersex children, and preventing any forced hormonal therapy. Additionally, guidelines were issued to law enforcement to avoid harassment of queer individuals or compelling them to return to their natal families.
The petitioners argued that LGBTQ+ individuals deserved the legal privileges associated with marriage as part of their constitutional rights. However, the Center and religious leaders opposed this assertion. Despite this ruling, it is important to note that it follows the historic 2018 Supreme Court judgment that decriminalized homosexuality, marking a significant milestone for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
During the hearings, a total of 21 petitioners presented their cases over the course of ten days in April-May 2023. The court refrained from delving into personal laws governing marriages, emphasizing that the concept of marriage, as defined in the Special Marriage Act, is not rigidly based on gender.
Chief Justice Chandrachud challenged the perception of marriage as a static institution and emphasized that labeling marriage as fixed and unchanging is inaccurate. He also highlighted that ‘queerness is neither urban nor elite,’ stating that to imagine queer as existing only in urban spaces would be erasing them. Queerness can be present regardless of one’s caste or class.
Furthermore, Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed that the court’s role is to interpret the law and give effect to it, rather than create new laws. He cautioned that striking down provisions of the Special Marriage Act would result in the loss of benefits provided by progressive legislation. Such action would take the country back to a pre-Independence era, thus requiring Parliament’s decision on the matter.
The Chief Justice advocated for the right to choose one’s partner and have that choice acknowledged, declaring that failure to acknowledge such unions is discriminatory. He emphasized the principles of equality and non-discrimination, asserting that all persons, including queer individuals, have the right to judge the moral quality of their lives. The law cannot assume that only heterosexual couples can be good parents, as it would amount to discrimination against queer couples.
While Justice S K Kaul supported the grant of certain rights to queer couples and emphasized marriage equality, Justice Ravindra Bhat expressed dissent regarding the directives related to the Special Marriage Act. He aligned with Justice Narasimha’s judgment and stated that decisions regarding intimate spaces should be left to the Parliament.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of same-sex marriage highlights the need for further progress in LGBTQ+ rights in India. Although the court has acknowledged the existence of discrimination and outlined measures to protect the queer community, the battle for marriage equality continues. The government and society as a whole must work towards ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
