SC Denies Same-Sex Marriage Recognition: Unions Entrusted to Committee for Queer Rights

CJI Chandrachud-headed bench and also the bench comprises Justices SK Kaul, SR Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha??delivered its verdict on same sex marriage.?All five judges concur that there is no fundamental right to marry, and the court, through a majority verdict, rules against legalising same-sex marriage.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

1. Legislative Responsibility:?The court leaves the decision on same-sex marriage to Parliament, emphasizing that it is the legislative body's responsibility to formulate laws on this matter.
2. Limitations of the Court:?The court expresses the inability to strike down the Special Marriage Act (SMA) or introduce modifications to it due to institutional constraints. It asserts that only Parliament can decide if same-sex marriage should be incorporated into the Special Marriage Act (SMA).
3. State Obligation:?The state is directed to facilitate LGBTQ individuals in exercising their rights, acknowledging that queer couples are free to engage in intimate associations.
4. Dynamic Nature of Marriage:?The court asserts that marriage is not a static concept and highlights that it is within the purview of Parliament to draft laws regulating such marriage.
5. Constitutional Grounding:?The right to enter into a union is grounded in Articles 19, with the court recognizing that choosing a life partner is an integral part of an individual's life. This right extends to the core of rights under Article 21, ensuring that queer persons are not subjected to discrimination.
6. Committee Formation:?The central government is instructed to establish a committee under the Cabinet Secretary, comprising experts. This committee is tasked with conducting extensive consultations and considering specific aspects:

?????????????Enabling queer persons to be recognized as a common entity for ration cards.

?????????????Facilitating joint accounts for queer couples.

?????????????Addressing issues related to last rites.

?????????????Formulating provisions for succession and pension for queer individuals etc.

?

In conclusion, the court says there's no fundamental right to same-sex marriage. They leave the decision to Parliament, saying it's their job to make laws about it. The court knows it can't change the Special Marriage Act; only Parliament can. They get that marriage can change, and they support the rights of LGBTQ people. They want a committee to figure out practical stuff, like ration cards and joint accounts, showing a way for possible fair laws in the future.