NEW DELHI:The Special Marriage Act should be changed by Parliament, not the court, according to Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, who delivered his ruling on Tuesday on 21 petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex unions. Justice Chandrachud stated at the opening that there were four judgements in the case, including those of himself, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, and P S Narasimha. A fifth judge, Justice Hima Kohli, is included on the five-judge panel. The CJI, who is in charge of the constitution bench, instructed the federal government, the states, and the Union Territories (UTs) to make sure that the LGBT population is not subjected to discrimination, stating that queer is a long-known natural phenomena that is neither urban nor elitist. In regards to the CJI’s decision to provide certain rights to queer couples, Justice Kaul said he concurs. He added that legal recognition of non-heterosexual unions is a step towards marriage equality and that “non-heterosexual and heterosexual unions must be seen as both sides of the same coin.” During the reading of his verdict, Justice Bhat stated that he shares some of the CJI’s opinions and holds others of his own. The Chief Justice of India stated in his decision on the crucial issue that Parliament must consider whether a change in the Special Marriage Act’s administration is necessary. The court cannot create laws. It can only interpret it and make it happen, he continued. According to Justice Chandrachud, the court has taken note of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s declaration that the government will convene a committee to deliberate on the privileges and rights of those who are members of LGBT unions. He ordered the Centre, states, and UTs to take actions to educate the public about gay rights and make sure that intersex children are not allowed to have sex-change procedures at a young age when they cannot fully understand the consequences as he read out the operative portion of his decision. Before filing a police report (FIR) against a gay couple for their relationship, the CJI instructed the police to make some preliminary inquiries. He claimed that homosexuality or queerness is not a phenomenon unique to urban areas or the wealthy.According to Justice Chandrachud, it would be erasing to think of gay people as just living in metropolitan areas. Queerness can exist regardless of caste or status. To say that marriage is a “static and unchanging institution” would be false, he claimed. According to Justice Chandrachud, the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution begins with the freedom to select one’s life mate. The CJI stated that refusing to accept such an association would constitute discrimination and that the right to join into a union involves the freedom to select a partner and its recognition. All people, including queers, have the freedom to assess the morality of their own lives, he said. According to the CJI, this court has acknowledged that equality mandates that LGBT people not be subjected to discrimination. According to him, it would be discriminatory against gay couples if the law made the assumption that only heterosexual couples could make excellent parents. The verdict is currently being announced. After a lengthy, 10-day hearing, the bench deferred its decision on the pleas on May 11. The Centre had stated to the Supreme Court during the arguments that any constitutional ruling it reached on the petitions seeking approval of same-sex unions might not be the “correct course of action” since the court would not be able to predict, envision, understand, and cope with any consequences. On April 18, the supreme court began hearing arguments in the case. The bench made it clear during the arguments that it will not consider personal laws governing marriages when deciding the petitions for judicial recognition of same-sex unions and that the Special Marriage Act’s definition of a man and a woman is not “an absolute based on genitals.” Some petitioners had requested the supreme court to utilise its full authority, “prestige, and moral authority” to pressure society into recognising such a union so that LGBTQIA++ people might live “dignified” lives like heterosexuals. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual, and ally persons are collectively referred to as LGBTQIA++.The Centre informed the court on May 3 that it would form a committee under the direction of the cabinet secretary to look into administrative measures that may be done to meet the “genuine humane concerns” of same-sex couples without addressing the question of legalising their union. On April 27, the court requested information from the Centre regarding whether same-sex couples can receive social welfare advantages such as opening joint bank accounts and designating a life partner in provident fund, gratuity, and pension plans without worrying about whether their marriage would be recognised by the law.
