Shruti Suman
The Supreme Court did not legalize same-sex marriage today, but emphasized that an individual’s right to form a union cannot be restricted based on their sexual orientation. A five-judge bench presented four judgments, primarily differing on the issue of adoption rights for LGBTQ+ couples. They urged the government to establish a committee to address practical concerns of same-sex couples, including issues like obtaining ration cards, pension, gratuity, and succession matters.
On May 3, the government had informed the court of its intention to create a committee led by a cabinet secretary to find administrative solutions to problems faced by same-sex couples, without addressing the issue of marriage equality.
Regarding adoption rights, the bench delivered a split 3-2 judgment. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul recognized the right of LGBTQ+ couples to adopt, while Justices S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha, and Hima Kohli disagreed.
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that choosing a life partner is a fundamental aspect of determining one’s life path, a right that is integral to the right to life and liberty under Article 21. He asserted that the right to enter into a union includes the right to select one’s partner and receive recognition of that union, emphasizing that such associations should not face discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Disagreeing with the government’s argument that marriage equality is limited to urban elites, Chief Justice Chandrachud noted that queerness is not confined to urban areas and that homosexuality is not an urban or upper-class concept.
He also supported adoption rights for LGBTQ+ couples, arguing that there is no evidence to suggest that only heterosexual couples can provide stability to a child. He criticized the Central Adoption Resource Authority for exceeding its authority by preventing adoption by same-sex couples.
Justice Kaul agreed with the need for an anti-discrimination law and emphasized that same-sex relationships have been recognized throughout history for emotional fulfillment, not just sexual activities.
Justice Bhat, while acknowledging that queerness is not limited to urban elites, disagreed with the Chief Justice’s directions. He argued that the court should not create a legal framework for LGBTQ+ couples, leaving such matters to the legislature.
The judges agreed that the court should not attempt to modify the Special Marriage Act, as doing so would encroach on the legislature’s domain. They stressed that it was not within the court’s purview to strike down or amend the Special Marriage Act or associated laws like the Succession Act.
