Supreme Court Justice Upholds Support for Queer Civil Unions Despite Split Verdict
In a recent polarizing verdict last week, the Supreme Court of India refused to legalize same-sex marriages, sparking a divide among judges. The five-judge bench reached a split decision, with Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul ruling in favor of marriage equality, while Justices S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha ruled against it.
However, CJI DY Chandrachud reaffirmed his stance on supporting the civil unions of queer couples, emphasizing that sometimes it is a matter of conscience and adherence to the constitution. Speaking at a discussion on Comparative Constitutional Law hosted by Georgetown University in Washington, DC, Justice Chandrachud emphasized his commitment to his minority verdict.
Sometimes, it is a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution. And I stand by what I said, Justice Chandrachud stated.
Furthermore, Justice Chandrachud also stood by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court during a hearing on petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The bench decided not to interfere with the Special Marriage Act, leaving the decision of granting marriage equality to queer couples in the hands of Parliament.
It is worth noting that Justice Chandrachud was part of the historic five-judge SC bench that, in 2018, struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalizing same-sex relations between consenting adults. However, the recent verdict rejecting petitions to recognize same-sex marriage has led to questions and debates on the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals.
In 2018, we reversed a judgment of the Supreme Court where we decriminalized consensual homosexual relations, but that was not the end of LGBTQIA+ rights. We received petitions for same-sex marriage recognition under the secular law of the Special Marriage Act (SMA). The SMA dealt with prohibited degrees of relation and was limited to heterosexual couples. One of the key questions was whether the court has jurisdiction to enter this domain. The court unanimously decided that although we have made progress by recognizing queer individuals as equal participants in society and legislating on it, this falls under the role of Parliament, and the court cannot enter this domain, which involves succession, inheritance, and other matters, explained the CJI.
The CJI also reiterated the minority decision to grant rights to associations, while the majority on the bench maintained that recognizing the right to form unions was beyond the traditional domain and should be left to Parliament.
In conclusion, the recent split verdict by the Supreme Court of India regarding same-sex marriages has prompted Justice DY Chandrachud to firmly stand by his pro-civil unions stance. Upholding his minority verdict, Justice Chandrachud believes that sometimes votes are guided by conscience and the Constitution. While the issue of marriage equality has been left to Parliament, the ongoing debate over LGBTQIA+ rights and representation continues to play a significant role in shaping the future for queer individuals in India.
