NEW DELHI: A majority of the five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench has declared that there is no unqualified right to marriage for LGBTQIA+ couples and that only legislation can grant civil unions legal status. On May 11 of this year, the decision that had been reserved by the bench that included Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha was given. However, the court ruled that the verdict will not restrict the ability of queer people to form relationships. The Special Marriage Act (SMA) challenge on the grounds of under-classification is not supported, according to the supreme court.These seats were shared by Justices Ravindra Bhat, Narasimha, and Hima Kohli, but not by Chief Justice Chandrachud or Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The bench made it clear that there were four judgements in the case at the beginning of the judgement. CJI Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Narasimha each presided over one, with the last being handled by CJI Chandrachud. According to his ruling, the CJI gave the Union and State governments the mandate to make sure there is no discrimination against the LGBTQ community. It should be made sure that the queer community has equal access to goods and services, according to the CJI. Sensitising the public about LGBT rights is necessary. To stop harassment, the federal and state governments must establish a hotline for the queer community. For gay couples, the government must establish safe houses. Additionally, the government must make sure that intersex youngsters are not made to undergo procedures. It should be made sure that no one is forced to receive hormone therapy, according to the CJI. The gay community shall not be subjected to harassment by being called into a police station merely to answer questions about their sexual orientation. Queer people shouldn’t be made to return to their birth families by the police. Before filing a formal complaint (FIR) against a homosexual couple for their relationship, the police should do some preliminary inquiries. According to the CJI, this Court has the authority to consider the case.India has long been aware of the existence of the LGBTQ community. It is neither elite nor urban. Marriage is dynamic. Due to institutional constraints, the Supreme Court is not permitted to invalidate the Special Marriage Act or add new provisions to it. Discrimination occurs when the State refuses to acknowledge the slew of rights that result from an LGBT relationship. There must be any limitations on the right to union based on sexual orientation. According to current legislation, including personal laws, heterosexual relationships including transgender people are legal. In his ruling, the CJI stated that unmarried couples, including LGBT couples, are permitted to jointly adopt children.The right of the LGBT community to form unions must not be subject to discrimination by the Union Government, State Governments, or Union Territories. The CJI ordered the Union Government to form a committee to determine the privileges and rights of those who belong to homosexual unions. The Committee will think about allowing gay couples to apply for joint bank accounts, privileges derived from pensions and gratuities, etc. The Committee will also think about including gay couples as family in ration cards. The Union Government will review the committee report. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul stated in his concurring opinion that while marriage is not the end, legalising same-sex relationships is a step towards marriage equality. Justice Kaul urged us to maintain autonomy because it does not violate the rights of others. On a number of points in the ruling, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Narasimha dissented from the Chief Justice of India. The right to marry cannot be viewed as a fundamental right without any restrictions, according to Justice Bhat. Even while we concur that there is a right to relationships, we are clear that this right is covered by Article 21. It involves the freedom to select a partner and engage in physical intimacy with them, as well as the freedom to enjoy privacy and autonomy. These rights should be exercised freely and unhindered by the rest of society, and the state is required to defend them when they are in danger. There can be no question that choosing to choose a life partner is an option.Justice Bhat stated that in the absence of a constitutional right to marriage or the legal recognition of unions between non-heterosexual couples, the Court cannot impose any obligations on the State. According to Justice Bhat, there are several factors that need to be taken into account before establishing a legal framework for LGBT couples. All LGBTQ people have the freedom to select their partners, but the state is not required to accept the range of rights that result from such a union. A general neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act, according to Justice Bhat, may not always be equal and may unintentionally expose women to vulnerabilities. Why words like “wife,” “husband,” etc.is there to make sure victims of domestic violence obtain justice and is intended to protect the weak. Therefore, applying the desired interpretation to the Special Marriage Act would make it useless. In addition, Justice Bhat expressed some reservations about the CJI’s position on queer couples’ ability to adopt. Justice Bhat concluded by stating that there is no absolute right to marriage. Civil unions can only be given legal standing by legislation. However, these results won’t restrict gay people’s ability to form relationships. In his ruling, Justice Bhat stated that it is not supported to challenge the Special Marriage Act on the grounds of underclassification.Gay couples with transgender partners are permitted to wed. The state must make sure that gay people are not harassed. Justice Hima Kohli stated that she shared Justice Ravindra Bhat’s opinion. Justice Narasimha added that he shares Justice Ravindra Bhat’s viewpoint. A number of petitions concerning the LGBTQIA+ community’s right to marriage equality were being heard by the five-judge Constitution bench. On May 11, following the conclusion of the arguments from all of the solicitors, the order was reserved. The Constitution bench’s hearing on the subject started on April 18 and lasted for almost ten days. The Centre disagreed with the argument and asserted that parliament, not the court, should weigh the matter. Although the Centre referred to it as an urban elite idea, the court disagreed. The Centre had agreed to look into issues connected to giving LGBTQIA+ people some specific rights during the hearing, but they were against the same-sex couple receiving legal recognition.
