Neither the prerogative to adopt a child nor the sanction for marriage is provided, read about the Supreme Court's declaration on same-sex marriage

The day of Tuesday, October 17th, has been significant for same-sex couples. The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. A bench of five judges, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, had conducted hearings on this matter for ten days in May. They reserved the judgment on May 11 and delivered it today.

Here are the key points from Chief Justice Chandrachud’s judgment:

1. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that homosexuality is not limited to urban elites; it is prevalent in all sections of society. He urged the government to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage.
2. He stated that the government’s duty is to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. Marriage is a legal institution, but it is not considered a fundamental right. He argued that marriage laws have evolved over the last 200 years.
3. Chief Justice Chandrachud said that striking down the Special Marriage Act in the context of same-sex marriage is incorrect. However, he stressed that the government should provide legal recognition to such relationships to protect their essential rights.
4. He emphasized that everyone has the right to choose their life partner. Just as others have this right, so do same-sex couples, and it falls under the fundamental rights of Article 21.
5. The judgment also highlighted the need to amend provisions that prevent unmarried couples from adopting children, which subjects same-sex couples to discrimination.
6. Chief Justice Chandrachud suggested that the central government should form a committee to create a system for same-sex couples, including provisions for ration cards, nominee status in banks, making medical decisions, and receiving benefits like pensions.

Here’s what Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul stated in his judgment:

1. Justice Kaul acknowledged that homosexuality has existed since ancient times and advocated that same-sex couples should have legal rights. He recommended the government to establish a committee for this purpose.
2. He concurred with Chief Justice’s opinion that marriage is not a fundamental right, but the right to form relationships is.
3. Justice Kaul disagreed with the idea of granting same-sex couples the right to adopt children under the Special Marriage Act.
4. He supported the need for anti-discrimination laws, particularly to address discrimination against same-sex couples.

Justice Ravindra Bhatt’s judgment highlighted:

1. He agreed with Chief Justice Chandrachud that marriage is not a fundamental right, but forming relationships is.
2. Justice Bhatt acknowledged that the court cannot instruct the government to make laws but believed that same-sex couples have the right to choose their partners and live with them.
3. He did not agree with Chief Justice Chandrachud’s idea of granting the right to adopt children to same-sex couples.
4. He emphasized the need for anti-discrimination laws to address issues of discrimination against same-sex couples.

Justice P.S. Narsimha stated:

1. He agreed with Justice Bhatt that marriage is not a fundamental right, but forming relationships is.
2. Justice Narsimha believed that same-sex couples should have the right to choose their partners and live with them.
3. He did not agree with the idea of granting the right to adopt children to same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court of India refused to recognize same-sex marriage, stating that it is the government’s responsibility to make such legal changes. However, the court recommended the formation of a committee to address the concerns of same-sex couples and protect their rights. The court also rejected the idea of granting same-sex couples the right to adopt children under existing laws.