Same Sex Marriage Judgment : Analysis

In a nation where the rich tapestry of diversity is woven into its very identity, the recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court of India on same-sex marriage has evoked a sense of missed opportunity-a lamentable instance where the scales of justice, equality, and progress seemed to tip askew. While ostensibly rooted in legal intricacies and the demarcation of legislative boundaries, the verdict reveals itself as a poignant moment in time when India, in the eyes of many, could have etched a legacy of societal transformation.

- DHRUV SHARMA

The global stage unfurls a dynamic narrative of inclusivity, where numerous nations have embraced same-sex marriage as an embodiment of the universal right to love and commitment.

India, with its splendid mosaic of cultures and traditions, stands at a unique juncture.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court's stance on same-sex marriage does not align with this global tide of acceptance.

The reluctance to legalize same-sex marriages appears rooted in a reluctance to overstep legislative boundaries, as the Court cites the legislature as the rightful arbitrator of such matters.

However, history teaches us that judicial intervention has often been the necessary impetus for societal change, setting in motion the pendulum of progress. By shying away from the task, the Supreme Court inadvertently leaves the LGBTQ+ community at the mercy of societal prejudices and systemic discrimination.

Notably, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud acknowledged that an individual's right to enter into a union should remain undisturbed, unencumbered by their sexual orientation. This acknowledgment, while commendable, unfurls the verdict's profound contradiction. If the right to unite in a loving bond is indeed a fundamental tenet, then why does the Hon'ble court, an entity sworn to uphold justice and equity, withhold this right from same-sex couples? The 1 Advocate Dhruv Sharma, Junior Associate of Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advocate-on-Record divergence between principle and practice casts a disconcerting shadow over the Court's dedication to safeguarding essential rights.