Thousands of LGBTQ people seeking marriage equality have their hopes dashed when India’s Supreme Court rejects the proposal to legalize same-sex organizations.
Otherwise, the judge agreed to the president’s proposal to establish a panel to look into granting same-sex couples more constitutional rights and benefits.
Same-sex lovers and activists expressed their disappointment at the decision and pledged to continue their strategy.
21 requests from same-sex people and activists were being considered by the court.
The lengthy sessions that the five-judge bench held in April and May were” livestreamed in public attention.”
The petitioners claimed that being unable to get married violated their constitutional rights and reduced them to the status of” second-class citizens.”
They had suggested that the Special Marriage Act, which permits marriage between people from different religions, castes and countries, should simply replace” man” and” woman” with” spouse” in order to allow same-sex unions.
The government, which had vehemently opposed the petitions, insisted that only parliament should debate the socio-legal issues surrounding relationship and claimed that allowing same-sex unions would cause” conflict” in society.
The judges concurred with the authorities on Tuesday, saying that only parliament could enact laws and that judges could only perceive them.
They agreed to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s suggestion on behalf of the government to convene a committee, led by the top official in the nation, to discuss” granting homosexual couples” the rights and privileges that are available to heterosexual couples.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was one of the judges who supported legal union and giving same-sex people the same” gains that married folks enjoy.”
The government was also given a lengthy list of instructions by the chief justice, requesting that all forms of discrimination against the” queer community” be eliminated and that they be shielded from abuse and violence. Additionally, Justice Chandrachud stated that” queer and young couples” could simultaneously adopt a child.
However, it became apparent that Justice Chandrachud’s instructions would be exactly that – directions after all the judges had spoken and the majority of the three judges on the terrace did not support his list.
The Special Marriage Act should be amended to include LGBTQ people, the five-judge legal chair said, adding that they would not intervene with religious specific laws.
The bench acknowledged that there are lots of laws that govern issues of divorce, adoption, succession, maintenance, and other related problems— many of which do spill over into religious personal laws— as the hearings went on, but it became increasingly clear how complicated the problem was.
The verdict on Tuesday has left activists and same-sex people feeling” upset.”
I had a lot of promise when I arrived at the court this morning, but as I listened to the courts read out their commands, I was utterly let down. My hopes were dashed, according to Sharif Rangnekar, a gay rights advocate.
We are left in the hands of a great deal of administrative doubt if we decide to leave everything up to the government council with no timeline for when it will be set up or what rights it may give us. It’s extremely concerning.
The” Supreme Court is playing passing the piece ,” according to Pia Chanda, who has been in a same-sex marriage for 34 years.
She continued,” This judgment is a repetitive comedy and will keep the prejudice in place.
The verdict has also been well-received by some.
The Supreme Court Bar Association’s chair, Adish Aggarwala, expressed his satisfaction that the judge had agreed with the government that same-sex unions lacked the authority to be legalized.
He continued,” That right only belongs to the Indian parliament, and we are pleased that the court supports us.”
Mr. Aggarwala had previously stated to investigators that allowing same-sex relationships would not be a good idea because it is” not in accordance with the structure prevalent in India.”
Some same-sex people had previously told the BBC they would get married if the requests were granted, so they had been basing their expectations on this crucial decision.
- To see the BBC’s video on LGBTQ allies, click here.
In India, attitudes toward sex and sexuality are still mostly conventional, and activists claim that discrimination and stigma still exist in the community.
One of the petitioners’ attorneys, Mukul Rohatgi, stated during the reading that world occasionally needed encouragement to take LGBTQ people as constitutional equals and that the top court’s ruling would compel society to do so.
But that prod did not come today for India’s LGBTQ community.
Learn more BBC stories about India here:
On this account, more
-
-
18 November 2021
-
-
-
September 6, 2018
-
