Gay marriage decision: A closer look at the opinions of all 5 justices

 – Gudstory

Gay marriage decision: A closer look at the opinions of all 5 justices – Gudstory

Rate this post


Gay marriage verdict: In a 3:2 verdict, a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud ruled against granting constitutional validity to gay marriage.

The top court said the matter should be addressed by Parliament through legislation. While Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul supported the recognition of these rights, their position was rejected by the majority judgment of the other three judges: Justice Bhatt, Justice Hima Kholi and Justice Narasimha.

Also read: Gay marriage verdict live updates: SC refuses to grant marriage equality rights to LGBTQIA+ community in India

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, released its judgment in relation to various petitions related to marriage equality rights of the LGBTQIA community. Here are the opinions of the five judges:

  1. CJI DY Chandrachud

“The Central Government shall constitute a committee to decide the rights and entitlements of persons in homosexual unions. This committee will consider inclusion of same-sex couples as ‘family’ in ration cards, enabling same-sex couples to enroll for joint bank accounts, entitlements to pension, gratuity etc. The committee’s report will be considered at the central government level,” CJI Chandrachud said.

The Center said that would violate the separation of powers, but the court’s power for judicial review is also a part of the basic structure and sees to it that no organ acts in excess of the constitutional mandate,” the CJI said. bar and bench,

Also read: Gay marriage verdict: ‘A person’s gender is not the same as his sexuality,’ says CJI.

2. Justice SK Kaul

Reading his opinion, Justice SK Kaul said, “I recognize these as civil unions. I agree with the CJI’s decision. Upholding rights is not integral to the Constitutional Court and the Court is guided by constitutional morality and not by social morality. These unions should be recognized as unions of partnership and love.”

3. Ravindra Bhatt

Reading his opinion, Justice Ravindra Bhat said, “I hold that the strangeness is not urban or specific. We agree that there is no fundamental right to marry and the SMA is not unconstitutional and the words cannot be read down and transgender persons have the right to marry under the prevailing laws.”

Also read: Gay marriage: Supreme Court refuses to give legal recognition, disappointed netizens call it ‘fake language of sympathy’

“We, including Justice Narasimha, disagreed. The choice of marriage was not free and for a long time marriage was seen as a means of procreation… and women were in subordinate positions without agency. Notions of equality were unheard of and all of this changed radically. Legislative activity has been done with the aim of bringing gender equality,” Bhatt said. Bar and bench.

4. Hima Kohli

Justice Hima Kohli said she agreed with Justice Ravindra Bhat’s view.

5. Justice PS Narasimha

Justice PS Narasimha, while reading his opinion, said, “I agree with the opinion of Justice Bhatt.”

bar and bench “Marriage equality for LGTBQIA has never arisen in this court and so there is no precedent,” Narasimha said. LGBTQIA have the right to gender identity, right to sexual orientation, right to cohabitation and they have complete freedom in this. There is no inalienable right to marriage and it is not a fundamental right. In my considered opinion, marriage is determined by legislative interference.”

“Exciting news! Mint is now on WhatsApp channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest financial information!” Click here!

Catch all business news, market news, breaking news events and latest news updates on Live Mint. Download Mint News app to get daily market updates.

more less

Updated: October 17, 2023, 02:21 PM IST


No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *