No legal marriage rights for same-sex couples, rules SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples and said only Parliament and state legislatures can validate marital unions in a ruling that disappointed millions Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) people in India.

- Utkarsh Anand

By a 3-2 majority, the court also declined to grant constitutional protection to civil unions and adoption rights for queer couples, noting that mandating the State to grant recognition or legal status to some unions will violate the doctrine of separation of powers and could lead to unforeseeable consequences.

“This court cannot make law; it can only interpret it and give effect to it. The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must remain clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy which fall in the legislative domain,” the verdict said.

The Constitution bench — comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha — was unanimous that the right to marry was not a fundamental right, and said it was beyond the remit of courts to issue a positive direction to the legislature to characterise same-sex marriages and queer relationships through a new instrument of law.

“The directions or orders of this court cannot encroach upon the domain of the legislature,” said the unanimous view of the bench, noting that Parliament and state assemblies have enacted laws creating and regulating socio-legal institution of marriage under the Constitution.

But the two sides differed on two key aspects — recognition of civil unions, considered the world over as the first step towards granting full marriage equality, and adoption rights.

The ruling crushed the hopes of some 50-odd petitioners who approached the top court, arguing that not recognising their relationships denied them material entitlements that their heterosexual peers enjoyed, and this violated their constitutional rights.

“We are deeply disappointed by the judgment today,” said Supriyo Chakraborty, a petitioner.