Skip to main content

Supreme Court backs off from recognising same-sex marriage

 Supreme Court backs off from recognising same-sex marriage

A 5-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasim delivered a judgment in a batch of petitions which seek legal recognition for same-sex and queer marriages. In a 3:2 verdict, the Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage, placing it upon the Parliament and State governments to decide if non-heterosexual unions can be legally recognised.

The verdict, however, refused to legally recognise same-sex marriage since marriage “as a social institution predates all rights, forms of political thought and laws,” and there is no unqualified right to marry that people can claim as a fundamental right. “The capacity of non-heterosexual couples for love, commitment and responsibility is no less worthy of regard than heterosexual couples. Let us preserve this autonomy, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others,” Justice Kaul said in his opinion, quoting Bon Jovi’s “it’s my life”. The Bench affirmed that people have a right to choose one’s partners and to cohabit with one another.

The court also noted the Centre’s statement that it will set up a high-powered committee to examine the rights and benefits of queer couples.

Echoing the majority view, Justice Bhat summarized: “Consistent with the statement made to the court, the Union will set up a high-powered committee to examine the rights and benefits to queer couples. Transsexual persons in homosexual relationships have the right to marry. CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) regulations are not void for not allowing queer couples to adopt,” he said.

 

Gist of Supreme Court Judgment

 No    

Same-sex marriages

Same-sex civil unions

Same-sex joint adoption rights

 YES  

Rights of trans­ people to marry

Parliament framing laws for such unions

 





Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mandatory Injunction Not Automatic: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Relief Under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act

In a significant clarification on the scope of mandatory injunctions, the Supreme Court in Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi has held that the grant of a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , is not a matter of right but one of judicial discretion , to be exercised only when a legally enforceable obligation has been clearly breached . ⚖️ Breach Must Be Specific and Proven The Court emphasized that a mandatory injunction , which compels a party to perform a specific act, can be granted only when there is a demonstrable breach of an obligation that is legally binding . "The breach of obligation and performance and compulsion to perform certain acts in relation to such obligation must be specifically established before a mandatory injunction can be granted," the Bench observed. This reinforces that the courts must be satisfied not just about the existence of a duty or obligation, but also th...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Judicial Orders Meet Dishonesty: The Supreme Court's Critical Distinction on Disciplinary Action Against Judges

In a significant observation that challenges long-established judicial doctrine, the Supreme Court of India has articulated a nuanced position on the liability of judges for their judicial orders. While hearing a writ petition filed by a District Judge from Madhya Pradesh who challenged his suspension by the High Court, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raised a pivotal question: if a judicial order is passed based on dishonest or extraneous considerations rather than mere judicial error , why cannot disciplinary action be initiated? This observation marks an important evolution in the jurisprudence surrounding judicial immunity and disciplinary responsibility. ​ The Case: Factual Background The Supreme Court bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, examined the suspension of the District Judge immediately before his retirement. Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing the petitioner, contended that his client possessed an exemplary...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court Reaffirms "Fraud Unravels Everything" Principle in Landmark Vishnu Vardhan Case

Overview The Supreme Court of India in Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. made a definitive pronouncement on the relationship between fraud and the doctrine of merger. The three-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan held that if a High Court decision upheld by the Supreme Court was obtained through fraud, an aggrieved party may file a civil appeal against the High Court's order rather than seeking review of the Supreme Court's judgment . Legal Context and Background The dispute centered around a parcel of land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, jointly purchased in 1997 by three individuals: Vishnu Vardhan (appellant), Reddy Veeranna, and T. Sudhakar . The land was subsequently acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in 2005, forming part of Sector 18, NOIDA . The trio initially pursued joint litigation to protect their interests in the land. However, Reddy allegedly emb...
Post a Comment
Read more