Same sex marriage, adoption and discrimination… Supreme Court judges agreed and disagreed on these 5 things
The Supreme Court in its decision on Tuesday refused to give legal recognition to gay marriage in the country. The Constitution Bench of 5 judges said in a unanimous decision that marriage is not a fundamental right. The court said that it is within the jurisdiction of Parliament to recognize gay marriage.
In a bench of 5 judges, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul advocated recognition of same-sex partnerships. He also said that it is necessary to enact anti-discrimination laws to protect the rights of LGBTQIA+ couples. Additionally, both of these judges argued that same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children. However, the bench of 5 judges had different opinions on the adoption of children by same-sex couples. The judges ruled against it by 3:2.
Let us know what the 5 judges agreed upon in their decisions on Same Sex
- Special Marriage Act is not unconstitutional. the court cannot cancel it
- Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws or personal laws.
- Marrying is not a fundamental right. The Constitution does not recognize the right to marry. It is beyond the court’s authority to give legal recognition to gay marriages.
- All the judges included in the bench directed to form a committee to consider the rights of gay couples.
- The government should ensure that the choices made by same-sex couples are not interfered with and the LGBTQ+ community is enabled to exercise their rights.
There was disagreement among the judges on these decisions
- Right to adopt a child: Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul held that same-sex couples can jointly adopt a child. However, Justices S Ravindra Bhatt, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha said same-sex couples cannot be given the right to jointly adopt a child.
- No right for gay couples to enter into a civil union.
- Cannot direct the state to recognize non-statutory relationship.
- The state cannot be forced to provide benefits to gay couples.
- The judges were not unanimous on the question to what extent the court or government can interfere in the rights of homosexual people.
20 petitions were filed
A bench of 5 judges headed by CJI DY Chandrachud had reserved the decision in this case on May 11. Actually, a petition was filed on this issue on behalf of 20 gay couples. The petitioners have demanded that this type of marriage be given legal recognition. In these petitions, the provisions of the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969 were challenged.
