The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages in a 3:2 majority ruling.
The court reiterated that granting legal recognition to such marriages is a job that only the legislature can undertake. The court stated that transgender and intersex couples have a right to marry under the existing personal laws.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Ravindra Bhat, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, PS Narasimha and Hima Kohli pronounced the verdict.
On adoption rights, the court said that unmarried queer couples do not have the right to adopt a child. Separately, the court also recorded the union government's statement that it will formulate a high-powered committee that will examine the rights and benefits that can be bestowed upon queer couples.
The CJI and Justice SK Kaul pronounced the minority verdict.
Rooting for a right to marry for non-heterosexual couples, the CJI said that it is an innate human need to seek companionship. As a corollary, he added that the right to choose a partner is grounded in Articles 19 and 21.
The CJI also conveyed dismay at the fact that the state has not conferred adoption rights on homosexual couples, which reinforces the disadvantages faced by the queer community.
The CJI was of the opinion that an adopted child is a legitimate child of the adopting couple, and all the benefits available to an adopted child of a married couple shall also be available to an adopted child of an unmarried couple. However, the same did not resonate with the majority opinion.
Justices Bhat, Narasimha and Kohli pronounced the majority verdict.
Justice Bhat clarified that there cannot be an unqualified right to marry and that civil marriage or recognition of such a right cannot exist without the existence of a statute. The court cannot create a framework for such marriages, and it falls in the domain of the legislature to enact a statute, he said.
It was also clarified that non-heterosexual couples do not have a right to adopt a child.
In April 2023, the top court admitted various petitions seeking legal validation of same-sex marriages.
Several prominent lawyers, including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju and Mukul Rohatgi, argued in favour of legalisation, whereas Kapil Sibal, Tushar Mehta and Rakesh Dwivedi argued against it.
In a hearing that spanned 10 days, the court pondered over various issues, both for and against the legal validation of such marriages.
Arguments in favour of legalisation ranged from the right to marry for non-heterosexual couples being implicit in the Constitution of India to pushing the court to bring about an active change in the law, claiming that society cannot keep waiting for the legislature to act upon it.
In contrast, arguments against legalisation focused on the fact that there would be a complete overhaul of various legislation in the country if same-sex marriages were to be legalised, and the power to do so rests exclusively with the Parliament.
It was also argued that lawmakers had never envisaged the issue of marriage between the same sexes in the Special Marriages Act, and any judicial attempt to alter the intent of the Act would be rendered nugatory.
Watch the full video here:
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.