What Does the Supreme Court Say On LGBTQ+ Rights?
The Supreme Court’s rejection to recognize marriages between people of the same sex is considered as a defeat for the country’s LGBT community. Given recent legal progress and the expansion of the scope of individual rights, there was popular expectation that the five-judge Constitution Bench would give the Special Marriage Act (SMA), which allows any two people to marry, a gender-neutral interpretation to include people of the same sex. The five judges have decided to leave it to the legislature to enforce such a law.
Observations of the Supreme Court on LGBTQ+ Rights
Legislature to frame laws
The court ruled that it cannot overturn or insert language into the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 to bring same-sex individuals within the scope of the SMA 1954.The Supreme Court ruled that it is up to the Parliament and state legislatures to draft a legislation on the subject.
State to have autonomy on policy outcomes
They could make all marriage and family-related laws gender neutral, or they could create a separate SMA-like statute in gender-neutral terms to provide an avenue for marriage for the queer community, or they could pass an Act establishing civil unions or domestic partnership legislation, among many other options.
In 1968, Tamil Nadu revised the Hindu Marriage Act to enable self-respect or ‘Suyamariyathai’ weddings.
The right to form Civil Unions
The minority position advocated for the state to recognize gay partnerships, even if they did not take the form of marriage. The right to enter a union cannot be prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation (a violation of Article 15); additionally, marriage is significant because it confers a slew of rights, and for same-sex couples to enjoy these benefits, the state must recognize such relationships.
However, the majority ruling held that the government is not required to recognize the bundle of rights that would result from such a Union.
Trans Persons’ Rights
The majority ruling of the Bench held that transgender people had the right to marry under current law. As a result, such weddings are legitimate under marriage laws. Furthermore, the decision acknowledged that intersex people who identify as either male or female have this right as well.
Adoption Rights
The majority ruling rejected to overturn the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) laws that prohibit gay couples from adopting a child together.
While noting that the rules are discriminatory and violate Article 14, the majority ruling did not favor adoption rights for same-sex couples, emphasizing the necessity to investigate all possibilities for the sake of children in need of stable homes.
Natal family violence and protection
Many homosexuals endure abuse from their biological family and are allegedly abducted in an effort to stop relationships. The verdict said that the principal agents in such violence are LGBTQ members’ families and the police, and it has directed the police department not to compel members of the LGBTQ+ community to return to their families.
Previous High Court judgments recognized the validity of gay couples in live-in relationships and protected them from abuse.
Issues Faced By the LGBTQ+ Community
The decision denies LGBTQ+ couples the social and legal benefits of marriage, including as inheritance, adoption, insurance, and pensions, among other things. Due to the absence of legal recognition for same-sex marriage, these couples are denied the same rights and advantages as heterosexual couples.
Rather than forcing the majority’s beliefs on minority groups, the state should accept their diversity and plurality.
The decision ignores the real-life realities of LGBTQ+ people, who endure discrimination, assault, and stigma in society because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Conclusion
The Court denied same-sex couples the right to marry, contradicting norms of non-discrimination in marriage, and delegated this authority to the legislature. While marriage has legal prerequisites, the personal choice to seek validation via it is guaranteed by the Constitution, subject to specific statutory limitations.
The majority judgment of the Supreme Court bench denied adoption for gay couples but favours transgender people in heterosexual marriages. All judges believe that same-sex couples have the right to cohabit freely.
Due to religious and cultural resistance, the Legislature may be cautious to legalize same-sex marriages. The LGBTQ+ community might take solace in the Court’s request for a parliamentary committee on the rights of gay couples, but the road to legal equality remains difficult.
