According To The CJI, Parliament Can Modify The Law; We Can Only Interpret It
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 that there are four decisions in the case, including that of himself, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, and Justice 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.
The legal recognition of non-heterosexual unions, he continued, is a step toward marital equality. “Non-heterosexual and heterosexual unions must be seen as both sides of the same coin,” he stated.
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.
“This court has no legal authority. 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 Center, states, and UTs to take actions to educate the public about queer 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 recognize such an association would constitute discrimination and that the right to engage into a union involves the freedom to select a partner and its recognition.
“All persons, including those queer, have right to judge moral quality of their lives,” he stated.
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 Center had stated to the Supreme Court during the arguments that whatever constitutional ruling it reached on petitions seeking to legalize same-sex marriage might not be the “correct course of action” because 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 discuss personal laws governing marriages while deciding the petitions seeking judicial recognition of same-sex unions and that the definition of a man and a woman, as used in the Special Marriage Act, is not “an absolute based on genitals.”
Some petitioners had asked the Supreme Court to utilize its full authority, “prestige, and moral authority” to pressure society into accepting such a union so that LGBTQIA++ people might live “dignified” lives alongside heterosexuals.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual, and ally persons are collectively referred to as LGBTQIA++.
The Center informed the court on May 3 that it would form a committee under the direction of the cabinet secretary to look at administrative measures that could be implemented to address “genuine humane concerns” of same-sex couples without addressing the question of legalizing their union.
On April 27, the court requested information from the Centre regarding whether same-sex couples can receive social welfare advantages such as creating joint bank accounts and designating a life partner in provident fund, gratuity, and pension schemes without worrying about whether their marriage would be recognized by the law.
