In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India pronounced a historic verdict on the adoption rights of same-sex couples. This groundbreaking decision has far-reaching implications and challenges the existing adoption regulations. The five-judge bench’s 3:2 verdict against adoption rights for the LGBTQIA community has sparked conversations on legal equality and social change.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul strongly asserted that queer couples should be granted adoption rights. They emphasized that the law cannot assume that only heterosexual couples can be good parents. Justice Chandrachud observed during the verdict on same-sex marriage that the current adoption regulations are in violation of the constitution for discriminating against queer couples. He specifically mentioned that the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) circular, which denies adoption rights to queer couples, is “violative of Article 15 of the Constitution.”
The controversy revolves around CARA Regulation 5(3), which indirectly discriminates against atypical unions. Under this regulation, a queer person can only adopt in an individual capacity, reinforcing discrimination against the queer community. Justice Chandrachud pointed out that there is no concrete evidence to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child. Justice Kaul echoed these sentiments, supporting the Chief Justice’s observations on adoption.
However, not all the justices were in complete agreement. Justice Ravindra Bhat, while agreeing with the idea that unmarried queer couples can be just as good at parenting as heterosexual couples, raised concerns. He emphasized that, given the objective of section 57, the State, as parens patriae, needs to explore all areas to ensure that all benefits reach children in need of stable homes.
Justices Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha also disagreed with Chief Justice Chandrachud’s stance, ultimately leading to the 3:2 verdict. The implications of this verdict are profound. The court has recommended the formation of a committee that will consider including queer couples as family members on ration cards, enabling them to nominate for joint bank accounts, and ensuring rights related to pension, gratuity, and more. This step signals a significant move towards recognizing the rights and responsibilities of same-sex couples within the legal framework.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India’s ruling on same-sex adoption rights is a significant step towards a more inclusive and equitable society. It challenges the existing norms and paves the way for a more progressive and accepting future. The legal landscape is evolving, and this verdict marks a crucial turning point in the fight for equal rights and social acceptance.