Hyderabad:In a ground-breaking ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that an individual's right to enter into a union cannot be restricted based on sexual orientation, emphasizing the fundamental importance of equality and non-discrimination. While the court refrained from legalising marriage equality, the verdict carries significant implications for the LGBTQ+ community, particularly in the areas of adoption and practical concerns. The five-judge bench delivered four separate judgments, with a division primarily centred on the adoption rights of queer couples.
Judicial Support for LGBTQ+ Rights
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul were at the forefront of recognizing the rights of queer couples, including their right to adopt. Chief Justice Chandrachud stated, "Choosing a life partner is an integral part of choosing one's course of life. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21." He further stressed that the right to enter into a union encompassed the right to choose a partner and the recognition of that union. According to him, failure to acknowledge such unions would result in discrimination against queer couples.
Chief Justice Chandrachud also challenged the notion that queerness is an urban, elite concept. He emphasized that homosexuality and queerness are not limited to urban areas or exclusive to certain societal classes, debunking the notion that marriage equality is only relevant to specific segments of society.
Justice Kaul echoed the Chief Justice's sentiments and called for an anti-discrimination law. He pointed out that same-sex relationships have been recognized throughout history, not solely for sexual activities but as relationships that fulfil emotional needs. He agreed with the judgment of the Chief Justice and argued that constitutional courts must uphold rights guided by constitutional morality rather than social morality.
Divergent Views on Adoption Rights
The bench delivered a split 3-2 judgment concerning adoption rights. While Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul supported the right of queer couples to adopt, Justices S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha, and Hima Kohli disagreed.
Justice Bhat concurred with the idea that queerness is not confined to urban or elite settings but did not concur with the Chief Justice's directions. He argued that when the law is silent, Article 19(1)(a) does not compel the State to create laws to facilitate that expression. He contended that it should be the legislature's role to address these issues and that the court should not create a legal framework for queer couples.
Moreover, Justice Bhat expressed concerns about the State's obligation as parents to explore all aspects when determining the best interests of children in need of stable homes. He suggested that the State should consider multiple factors, which may not align with the concept of adoption by non-heterosexual couples.