On October 17, the Supreme Court refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was no unqualified right to marriage with the exception of those that are recognised by law. (PTI/File)
The judgement is a blend of interpretation of statutory provisions, culture and morality. It is relevant in the context of Indian culture, ethos, and heritage, the letter said
Around 20 former judges from High Courts across India have penned an open letter appreciating the Supreme Court’s recent verdict which refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages.
Contending that the verdict received “overwhelming applause” from the society except the LGBTQAI+ community, the letter said: “The judgement is a blend of interpretation of statutory provisions, culture and morality. It is relevant in the context of Indian culture, ethos, and heritage.”
On October 17, the apex court refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those that are recognised by law. The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of queer people so they don’t face discrimination in accessing goods and services that are available to others.
“Thrust of minority view on equality, individual dignity, choice of civil union irrespective of sexual orientation and privacy emanating from Articles 19, 21 and 25 of constitution of India did not find favour with the majority in the bench. An important feature of the majority view is recognition of the marriage as a social institution in existence from times immemorial, pre-dating the concept of state. This gives credence to the bond of marriage between a man and a woman constituting family as a primary unit of civil society as propounded by our scriptures,” the letter signed by 22 former High Court judges said.
Unable to display PDF file. Download instead.
Unable to display PDF file. Download instead.
Holding that transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions, the Supreme Court had said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship can be only done through “enacted law”.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it is within Parliament’s ambit to change the law for validating such union. They, however, made an impassioned pitch for granting benefits and privileges that are otherwise available to married couples, to people in same-sex relationships, and steps to ensure they are not discriminated against.
Source: News18