LIVE | ‘Only Parliament can make laws to allow same-sex marriages, not courts’
The Supreme Court on October 17, 2023, pronounced the judgment with respect to a bunch of petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages.
Though the court refused to grant legal recognition for same-sex marriages in India, four out of the five judges on the bench agreed to direct the Centre to constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer union, without legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage".
The case was reserved on May 11 for judgment. The Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, consists of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha.
All judges barring Justice Kohli gave separate judgments.
The CJI, in his opinion, concluded that the court can neither strike down or read words into the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex members. it is up to Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws on marriage, he said.
However, at the same time, the CJI said the relationship of marriage is not a static one.
During the arguments, the Centre had told the apex court that any constitutional declaration made by it on pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage may not be a "correct course of action" as the court will not be able to foresee, envisage, comprehend and deal with its fallout.
The Centre had also told the court it had received responses from seven states on the issue of same-sex marriage and the governments of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Assam had opposed the petitioners' contention seeking legal endorsement for such wedlock.
The apex court had commenced hearing arguments in the matter on April 18.
Live Updates
- 17 Oct 2023 10:41 AM IST
The Centre's stand
The Centre is opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriages on these grounds:
That legal sanctity can be given only by competent legislature, not the courts.
That legality for gay marriages reflects a “mere urban elitist views” that the vast majority of Indians don’t want.
That marriage is a “heterogenous institution” involving the union of “a biological male and biological woman”.
That all the religions in India consider marriages sacred, and there’s no room for homosexuality.
- 17 Oct 2023 10:30 AM IST
Matter referred to five-judge bench
The three-judge Bench referred the petitions to recognise same-sex marriages to a five-judge Constitution Bench, which started hearing the arguments on April 18. The apex court Bench, calling it “a matter of seminal importance,” said any decision on the subject will have “a huge bearing on society”.
“This judgment will have a huge bearing on society — don’t cut down anyone’s time and this must be considered,” a three-judge Bench said on March 13. “We are of the view that it would be appropriate if the issues raised are resolved by the Bench of five judges of this court with due regard to A 145(3) of the Constitution. Thus, we direct it to be placed before a Constitution Bench,” the judges said.
Article 145(3) states that a Bench of at least five judges should hear cases involving substantial questions and interpretation of the Constitution. - 17 Oct 2023 10:30 AM IST
Three-judge bench starts hearing
On March 13, 2023, the Supreme Court started hearing a batch of pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages. The pleas were listed for hearing before a Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala. The apex court had, on January 6, clubbed and transferred to itself all such petitions pending before different high courts, including the Delhi High Court. - 17 Oct 2023 10:29 AM IST
Path-breaking verdict
The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench, in a path-breaking unanimous verdict delivered on September 6, 2018, decriminalised consensual gay sex. The court held that consensual sex among adult homosexuals or heterosexuals in a private space is not a crime while striking down a part of the British-era penal law that criminalised it on the ground that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.
