New Delhi: Opinions have been expressed in favor of and against the Supreme Court’s decision that it is up to Parliament and Legislatures to legalize same-sex marriages.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhatt, Hema Kohli and PS Narasimha delivered four separate judgments on Tuesday in a case seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, “The Supreme Court cannot annul the Special Marriage Act. It cannot add a clause to recognize same-sex marriages. Only Parliament and Legislatures can enact laws related to marriages. As it is not possible to get recognition of marriages according to the current law, Parliament and Legislatures can legalize same-sex marriages.” We have to decide whether to approve or not,” he said.
In his judgement, Justice Bhatt observed, “Laws recognize marriage bonds. This court can only urge the government to enact laws to that effect.” In his ruling, Justice Kaul said, “We can take the next step in marriage equality by recognizing same-sex marriage.” A 5-judge constitution bench gave a different verdict. After a 3-judge bench held that same-sex marriage can only be legalized by Parliament and Legislatures, the matter has now gone into the hands of Parliament and Legislatures.
Opinions have been expressed for and against this decision of the Supreme Court. In this case One of the petitioners is LGBTQ+ rights activist Harish Iyer, said many of the Supreme Court’s observations were favorable to the LGBTQ+ community, even if the verdict was not in their favor. This judgment of the Supreme Court RSS Welcomed. In this regard, Sunil Ambedkar, who is in charge of the propaganda department of the organization, who has posted a comment on his X page, said, “The verdict of the Supreme Court in the issue of same-sex attraction marriage is welcome. Our parliamentary democratic process has discussed all aspects of this issue and taken an appropriate decision.”
“We are satisfied with this judgment of the Supreme Court. The views of all parties including Hindus, Muslims and Christians have been heard and it has been clarified that same-sex marriage cannot be a right. It is certain that it is not a fundamental right.” VHP reported.
This judgment Supreme Court Bar Council Welcomed. Adish Agarwala, head of the organization, said, “The court has accepted the central government’s position that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over same-sex marriage. This is happy. India is an ancient country. The court cannot grant permission for same-sex marriage here.”
Jairam Ramesh, General Secretary, Press Relations, Congress Party In a post released by X, “We are studying today’s Supreme Court’s divergent judgments on same-sex marriage and related issues. We will get a detailed response later. The Indian National Congress has always supported protecting the freedoms, choices and rights of all our citizens. We insist that there should be a place for all.” “As a party, we firmly believe that there should be no discrimination in the judiciary, society and politics,” he said.
The group of petitioners in the case said that the Supreme Court’s decision refusing to legalize same-sex marriages was disappointing Anjali Gopalan stated. What the Chief Justice said about adoption is very good. But Anjali Gopalan mentioned that it is disappointing that the other judges did not agree.
What is the central government’s view? – Earlier, when the central government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court during the hearing of this case, it was an urban elite view to demand legal recognition of same-sex marriages. A court should not seek to create a new social institution by upholding same-sex marriages. Judges should leave this task to Parliament.
People will decide whether such ‘other type’ marriages are socially and religiously acceptable or not. It cannot be claimed that the creation of a new social institution is a right or that it is an individual choice. It is not a fundamental right. The individual right of choice does not include the right to recognize same-sex marriage. Today, marriage is a solemn, pluralistic institution, both legally and religiously. It is to be recalled that if same-sex marriages are legalized, it will seriously affect the interests of every citizen.