On Tuesday (Oct 17), a five-judge court issued a decision that denied same-sex marriage legal recognition in India. After hearing arguments in the significant case between April and May, Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud declared that the court was not the appropriate body to make decisions in this matter, stating that the responsibility to establish marriage laws lies with the Indian parliament. Chandrachud stated, “The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which falls in the legislative domain.”
Chandrachud argued that the state should extend legal protections to same-sex couples
Chandrachud argued that the state should extend legal protections to same-sex couples, claiming that denying “benefits and services” to heterosexual couples violates the fundamental rights of LGBTQ people. He emphasized the importance of selecting a life partner as a vital aspect of personal decision-making, emphasizing that this choice is related to the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of India’s constitution. Chandrachud also suggested that the government take steps to avoid discrimination against LGBT people. These initiatives included the development of helplines and safe houses for persons who are vulnerable to discrimination, as well as the cessation of medical operations aimed at changing gender identity or sexual orientation.
However, the other three judges on the bench did not agree with this directive. The bench consisted of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice P.S. Narasimha. A total of four judgments were delivered, with “a degree of agreement and a degree of disagreement,” the CJI said.
A petition stating that the non-recognition of same-sex unions violated the constitutional rights of LGBTQ people precipitated the court’s judgment. The Bharatiya Janata Party government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, opposed the petition, arguing that it should be decided by parliament and that the appeal represented the views of the urban and privileged elements of society.