The Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, delivered by a five-member bench, has left many pondering the complexities and uncertainties surrounding this long-awaited issue. While the diverse verdicts were filled with both agreements and disagreements, they ultimately revealed a degree of predictability. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud’s opening remarks set the tone for what was to come. Known for his liberal stance on social issues, his words brought hope to the petitioner communities. A sense of celebration filled the air as Justice Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kaul made it unequivocally clear that same-sex couples had a legitimate right to civil union. They issued a series of directions to ensure that the queer community would not face discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. However, these remarks provided no hint of the impending anti-climax, with the other three judges expressing their disagreement with the Chief Justice and his concurring colleague. The final verdict disallowed same-sex marriage without legal sanction, asserting that there was no fundamental and unequivocal right to marry in India. The court did acknowledge the discrimination faced by the queer community but opted to leave the matter to the government and parliament, claiming that it was beyond the court’s jurisdiction. This decision felt more like a sermon than a decisive ruling from the highest court in the land.
The court wisely rejected the notion that same-sex marriage was solely an urban elitist concept. “Queerness is a natural phenomenon that is neither urban nor elite”, noted the Chief Justice. Justice Ravindra Bhat concurred, upholding the rights of the queer community to civil union. The Centre’s argument that marriage was an exclusively heteronormative institution representing urban elitist views was strongly challenged during the hearings, but in the end, the court deferred the decision to the government and the legislature. This cautious approach is regrettably predictable. When constitutional morality clashes with public morality, the judiciary often turns a blind eye. The court acknowledged the denial of due constitutional guarantees to the queer community due to the government’s and society’s stance towards the LGBT community. Justice Bhat highlighted the discriminatory impact on petitioners regarding earned benefits, stemming from the State’s failure to recognize their social union or relationship. The court emphasized the State’s legitimate interest in addressing this discrimination, particularly in schemes like Provident Fund, Family Pension, and Employees State Insurance. Yet, all these arguments fell on deaf ears when the court chose to leave the matter in the hands of the government. This decision has left the affected communities deeply disappointed, marking a missed opportunity for the pursuit of equality.
The Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage reflects the challenges of reconciling constitutional morality and societal views. While acknowledging the discrimination faced by the queer community, the court’s reluctance to take a definitive stance leaves this critical issue in the hands of policymakers. It is a decision that may have far-reaching consequences, and only time will tell whether the government will act in favour of equality and inclusivity. In the wake of this verdict, the LGBTQ+ community, along with its allies, continues to press for change, advocating for equal rights and recognition. The court’s decision, while not the resounding victory they had hoped for, has only strengthened their resolve to challenge societal norms and work towards a more inclusive and equitable future for all.
