Chief Justice affirms stance on marriage equality ruling: "I stand by my words"
New Delhi, October 24: In a recent discussion on comparative constitutional law, Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, reaffirmed his stance on the marriage equality case, even though he found himself in the minority on 13 significant judgments. The Chief Justice made these remarks at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion, themed "Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States," hosted by Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
_067704820bea7d9c149d38653cc0f4eb_1280X720.webp)
Addressing the audience, he stated, "I do believe it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution. And I stand by what I said," referring to the Supreme Court's October 17 judgment, which stopped short of legalizing same-sex marriages.
In that judgment, all the judges on the five-member Constitution bench were in agreement that altering laws to bring about marriage equality would encroach into the legislative domain. However, there was a difference of opinion on the issues of civil union and adoption rights. Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul advocated for recognizing same-sex unions, while the majority of the bench took a different stance, with Justice S Ravindra Bhat disagreeing with the court's direction to establish a new legal framework for such relationships.
The Chief Justice reiterated the Supreme Court's decision to leave the matter of marriage equality to the Parliament, emphasizing, "By the unanimous verdict of all the five judges on the bench, we came to the conclusion that while we have progressed a great deal in terms of decriminalizing homosexuality and recognizing people belonging to the queer community as equal participants in our society, legislating on the right to marry is something that falls within the domain of Parliament."
In his original judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that choosing a life partner is an essential aspect of determining one's life path. He declared, "Some may regard this as the most important decision of their life. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21." He went on to assert, "The right to enter into a union includes the right to choose one's partner and the right to recognition of that union. A failure to recognize such associations will result in discrimination against queer couples," and concluded, "the right to enter into union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation."
Further advocating adoption rights for queer couples, he maintained that there is no evidence to support the claim that only heterosexual couples can provide stability to a child, stating, "There is no material on record to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child."
- With inputs from agencies
