Same-Sex Marriage: 'Stand By My Judgement, It Was A Vote Of Conscience', Says CJI Chandrachud
Last week, the Supreme Court, in a highly polarising verdict refused to allow same-sex marriages in India. The five-judge bench of the SC gave a split verdict, with Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul ruling in favour of marriage equality, the majority, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha ruled against it.
Why it was a vote of conscience
CJI DY Chandrachud on Monday said he stands by his minority judgement in favour of civil unions of queer couples, as sometimes it is a "vote of the conscience and a vote of the constitution".
Speaking at an event hosted by the Georgetown University, Washington, DC, Justice Chandrachud said he stands by his minority verdict.?
"I do believe it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution. And I stand by what I said," Justice Chandrachud said while speaking at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion on the topic 'Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States'.
What SC said on same-sex marriage
He also stood by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, during a hearing on a batch of petitions seeking legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
The bench decided against interfering with the Special Marriage Act and leaving the Parliament to take a decision over the issue of granting marriage equality to queer couples.
How 2018 ruling led to demand for legalising same-sex marriages
Justice Chandrachud was also a part of the five-judge SC bench, which in 2018 struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and made the historic ruling to decriminalise same-sex relations between consenting adults.
It was a milestone in the LGBTQAI+ community's fight for equal rights in India.
The verdict had also led to petitions to recognise same-sex marriage, which the SC rejected last week.
"In 2018 we reversed a judgment of the SC where we decriminalized consensual homosxual relations and that was not the end of the rights for LGBTQIA+. Then we had petitions for same sex marriage recognition under the secular law of Special Marriage Act (SMA). SMA spoke about prohibited degrees of relation and was for man and woman. One of the key questions was does the court have the jurisdiction to enter into this domain. The court unanimously decided that while we have progressed a great deal by recognising queer as equal participants in society and legislating on it falls within role of parliament and by judicial fiat we cannot enter this which gets into succession, inheritance etc.," the CJI said.
The CJI also reiterated its minority decision of giving rights to association while the majority of his colleagues on the bench felt that recognising a right to form unions was again beyond the traditional domain and that it must be left to Parliament.
For more on the news, sports, and current affairs from around the world, please visit?Indiatimes News.
