Advertising
Supported by
Although it broadened the definition of discrimination, the ruling was a significant setback for petitioners seeking a historic victory on marriage equality.
By Sameer Yasir and Alex Travelli
Reporting from New Delhi
India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition to legalize same-sex marriage, a major setback for the equivalent rights of gay men in the socially conservative country of 1. 4 billion people.
A five-judge panel ruled unanimously against the petitioners, with the chief justice saying it was up to Parliament to create any law detecting same-sex unions.
“The sentence is disappointing,” said Anjali Gopalan, a petitioner in the case and director of the Naz Foundation, a New Delhi-based nonprofit that works on issues of sexual fitness.
Still, it offers some glimmers of hope for proponents of same-sex marriage, though it’s largely rhetorical in some cases. The justices ruled that transgender people can marry other transgender people and expanded the definition of discrimination. Of the four reports issued in the judgment, some were evidently favorable to the petitioners.
“The right to decide about one’s spouse and the right to the popularity of that union” must be respected, even if the union does not constitute marriage, Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, India’s justice leader, wrote in his verdict.
Chandrachud J. A. ‘s opinion, however, is a minority of two members. And he agreed with all the other justices that the court is not the proper forum to ask for adjustments to marriage laws, writing that the judiciary “must be careful not to intervene in legislation. “kingdom. “
The petitioners argued that the lack of legal safeguards for same-sex couples violates their constitutional right to equivalent coverage under the law. Among the forms of marriage, they argue, same-sex couples deserve the right to adopt children.
The ruling against them, which comes five years after the court struck down colonial-era legislation criminalizing homosexuality, concludes a proceeding that began with a 10-day hearing that was heavily monitored and livestreamed this spring.
India’s conservative government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had argued that it had a valid interest in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, calling it an integral component of the basis of the state. The legalization of same-sex marriage was peddling “urban elitist views” that were not representative of the general public.
Adish Aggarwal, chairman of the Bar Council of India, said after Tuesday’s ruling that the country is simply not in a position to host such unions.
Members of the gay, lesbian, transgender and queer network in India face widespread discrimination, whether legal or illegal, that turns violent. Discussions of gay sex are still considered taboo in India, despite the groundbreaking 2018 decision.
But public opinion on same-sex unions is changing rapidly. A Pew Research Center poll conducted this year in 24 countries found that 53 of Indians favored legalizing same-sex marriage, up from 15 in 2014.
Around the world, more than 30 countries, mostly in Europe and the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage, through a combination of political and legal interventions, since the first such unions were established in the Netherlands in 2001. Asia lags behind the West, with only Taiwan fully endorsing same-sex marriage.
Judge Chandrachud said in his ruling that the federal government will need to provide certain fundamental protections to gay citizens. For example, they should be protected from discrimination in access to goods and facilities and, in general, the public should be made aware. of gay rights. The justices unanimously agreed that other trans people deserve to be allowed to marry, as long as one partner identifies as a man and the other as a woman.
In response to the government’s statement that the deguyd for same-sex marriage catered only to “urban elitist views,” Judge Chandrachud wrote that “homosexuality is neither urban nor elitist. “”A guy with a neck who can tell he’s weird,” the judge wrote, “but also a woman running on a farm job in a village. “
Prior to the ruling, the government had proposed a committee of experts on the rights of the LGBT community. It would explore, inter alia, the option of treating same-sex couples as families when offering food assistance, bank accounts and insurance programmes. All the judges agreed with the proposal.
Sameer Yasir is a New Delhi-based journalist who joined The Times in 2020. Learn more about Sameer Yasir
Alex Travelli is a Times correspondent based in New Delhi who covers the industrial and economic problems of India and the rest of South Asia. In the past he worked as an editor and correspondent for The Economist. Learn more about Alex Travelli
Advertising