The Supreme Court’s Decision on Same-Sex Marriage: Implications for LGBTQIA+ Rights in India

Introduction

In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court of India has declined to approve same-sex marriages, asserting that the issue lies within the domain of the Parliament. This ruling has significant implications for LGBTQIA+ rights in India, where the demand for marriage equality has gained momentum. Petitioners have called for the reinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, advocating for inclusivity by replacing “man and woman” with “spouses.” The right to marry is seen as a crucial step towards achieving equality, offering access to a myriad of legal benefits, including insurance, adoption, and inheritance.

Petitioners’ Demands

Constitutional Basis

The petitioners argue that the right to marry for non-heterosexual couples is implicit in various constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21. They assert that denying this right infringes upon the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Previous Landmark Judgments

Referencing key Supreme Court decisions such as ‘Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India’ (2018) and ‘KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India’ (2017), the petitioners seek to bolster their case. These judgments have set significant precedents in recognizing and upholding the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Benefits and Rights

The petitioners stress the importance of equal access to marriage-related benefits and rights, including pensions and provident funds. They contend that these privileges should not be denied based on sexual orientation.

Minimum Marriageable Age

In a bid to address the unique circumstances of lesbian, gay, and transgender couples, the petitioners suggest different minimum marriageable ages based on gender identity. This proposition aims to provide tailored solutions for each segment of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Recognition of Fundamental Rights

The petitioners draw attention to the Transgender Persons Protection Act, 2019, citing it as a precedent that recognizes the right to marry for all queer identities. This legislative measure, they argue, establishes a clear foundation for marriage equality.

Respondent’s Arguments

Maintainability and Jurisdiction

The respondents question the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case and raise concerns about the maintainability of the petitions. They argue that the issue of same-sex marriage falls within the purview of Parliament, rather than the judiciary.

Impact on Existing Laws

The respondents contend that introducing marriage equality would necessitate amendments to 160 existing laws. They posit that this extensive legislative undertaking should be the prerogative of Parliament.

SMA Character and Intent

Emphasizing that the Special Marriage Act (SMA) was intentionally designed for heterosexual unions, the respondents argue that altering its character and intent would require legislative action. They maintain that this act was not intended to encompass same-sex marriages.

Legitimate State Interest

The respondents assert that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriages, addressing aspects such as age of consent, bigamy, and prohibited degrees of marriage. They contend that such regulation is necessary to maintain social order.

Welfare of Children

Advocating for the welfare of children born to heterosexual parents, the respondents argue for differential treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples. They posit that prioritizing the interests of children is paramount.

Public Perception

Expressing concerns about societal acceptance, the respondents highlight potential collateral damage to various legal provisions if same-sex marriage were declared a fundamental right. They contend that this shift could have far-reaching consequences.

States Responses

While Rajasthan, Assam, and Andhra Pradesh opposed the plea for legal recognition of same-sex marriages, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Manipur sought more time to respond. Additionally, fundamentalist religious organizations have voiced opposition to such unions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality in India holds the potential to shape the LGBTQIA+ rights landscape profoundly. In a region where conservative values still hold sway, only Taiwan and Nepal have embraced same-sex unions. The ruling underscores the ongoing struggle for LGBTQIA+ rights in India and sets the stage for further legal and societal evolution.