India’s Supreme Court has delivered a disappointing verdict by refusing to legalise same-sex marriage, asserting that this issue falls under the jurisdiction of Parliament.
This ruling has left millions of LGBTQ couples in their quest for equal rights disheartened.
In a unanimous decision issued in New Delhi on Tuesday by a five-judge bench, it was firmly established that marriage does not qualify as a fundamental right, Bloomberg news report.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, while presenting the court’s stance, emphasized that the court does not possess the authority to recognize LGBTQ marriages, leaving any changes to the law in the hands of legislators.
Despite India’s decriminalization of homosexuality in 2018, the extension of marriage rights to the LGBTQ community has not yet occurred. Globally, fewer than 40 countries permit same-sex marriage, with only Taiwan and Nepal doing so in Asia.
India’s case has attracted significant attention, with neighboring countries like Thailand and South Korea closely observing the proceedings, as they contemplate similar measures.
The Chief Justice of India noted that the institution of marriage undergoes evolution, but it is not within the court’s power to enact legal changes.
He stressed that the court’s role is to interpret the law and give it effect.
In addition to its decision, the Supreme Court has called upon the government to establish a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of LGBTQ individuals, including reviewing regulations pertaining to medical, financial, and inheritance benefits—matters that had been highlighted by the petitioners in the case.
During this year’s court hearings, the federal government opposed legalisation, arguing that the issue should be determined by the legislature and contending that same-sex marriage is not in line with Indian values.
In India, marriage is regulated by various codes, including the Special Marriage Act, a secular law that previously allowed intercaste and interreligious unions.
The plaintiffs, consisting of a diverse group of couples, asserted that the denial of marriage rights violated their constitutional rights and created challenges related to inheritance and adoption.
Although the Indian government offered to establish a panel to address these concerns, it refrained from addressing the topic of marriage during the proceedings.