In a nation where the rich tapestry of diversity is woven into its very identity, the recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court of India on same-sex marriage has evoked a sense of missed opportunity—a lamentable instance where the scales of justice, equality, and progress seemed to tip askew. While ostensibly rooted in legal intricacies and the demarcation of legislative boundaries, the verdict reveals itself as a poignant moment in time when India, in
the eyes of many, could have etched a legacy of societal transformation.
The global stage unfurls a dynamic narrative of inclusivity, where numerous nations have embraced same-sex marriage as an embodiment of the universal right to love and commitment.
India, with its splendid mosaic of cultures and traditions, stands at a unique juncture.
Regrettably, the Supreme Court’s stance on same-sex marriage does not align with this global tide of acceptance.
The reluctance to legalize same-sex marriages appears rooted in a reluctance to overstep legislative boundaries, as the Court cites the legislature as the rightful arbitrator of such matters.
However, history teaches us that judicial intervention has often been the necessary impetus for societal change, setting in motion the pendulum of progress. By shying away from the task, the Supreme Court inadvertently leaves the LGBTQ+ community at the mercy of societal
prejudices and systemic discrimination.
Notably, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud acknowledged that an individual’s right to enter into a union should remain undisturbed, unencumbered by their sexual orientation. This acknowledgment, while commendable, unfurls the verdict’s profound contradiction. If the right
to unite in a loving bond is indeed a fundamental tenet, then why does the Hon’ble court, an entity sworn to uphold justice and equity, withhold this right from same-sex couples?
The 1 Advocate Dhruv Sharma, Junior Associate of Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advocate-on-Record divergence between principle and practice casts a disconcerting shadow over the Court’s
dedication to safeguarding essential rights.
The judiciary’s resistance to a more progressive stance becomes particularly evident in the case of adoption rights for same-sex couples. A majority of the judges on the bench opposed Chief
Justice Chandrachud’s stance on allowing these couples to offer loving homes to children in need. This stark divergence represents a disheartening lapse, missing the opportunity to ensure that children, regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation, are placed in environments of love and care. The belief that only heterosexual couples can serve as good parents is not only discriminatory but remains empirically unsubstantiated. Research consistently demonstrates that children raised by same-sex couples fare equally well, debunking the stereotypes that underpin this verdict.
The verdict’s hesitancy to advance a more progressive stance seems to stem from a reluctance to infringe upon legislative jurisdiction. While this concern is valid, it should not act as a shield
behind which the judiciary hides from pressing social issues. The judiciary has a long history of redefining societal norms and addressing injustices, a role not to be abdicated when the cause
is as just as recognizing the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
The verdict’s hesitance in addressing the essential matter of extending adoption rights to samesex couples perpetuates the discrimination these individuals face in accessing vital benefits,
including Provident Fund, pension, gratuity, and insurance. Excluding these couples from these fundamental rights reinforces the notion that they are somehow unworthy, perpetuating an injustice that remains indefensible.
Moreover, the verdict’s disapproval of a gender-neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act seems to undermine the very principles of equality and inclusivity that the nation should uphold. Instead of advocating for inclusivity, it expresses concerns that such an interpretation may inadvertently expose women to vulnerabilities. Such apprehensions, although understandable, should be addressed through careful legislative drafting and implementation,
not through excluding certain groups from the law’s protective ambit.
This verdict represents a missed opportunity to challenge entrenched prejudices and misconceptions about the LGBTQ+ community. By adhering to societal norms that discriminate against same-sex couples, it unwittingly fosters the notion that these individuals are second-class citizens, perpetuating stereotypes and biases that linger in our society.
The argument that same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights are not a priority in the face of a forthcoming general election is inherently flawed. Human rights and social justice should always be at the forefront of the nation’s priorities, irrespective of political considerations. The recognition and protection of LGBTQ+ rights are not mere political issues; they are a matter of fundamental fairness and equality. It is the duty of a just and progressive society to ensure
that all its citizens are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage in India represents a missed opportunity to achieve the principles of equality, justice, and inclusivity. While certain positive
aspects can be discerned from the judgment, its refusal to legalize same-sex marriages and extend adoption rights to same-sex couples perpetuates discrimination and inequality.
As a nation that celebrates its diversity, India should aspire to lead the journey towards recognizing the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. The Supreme Court’s decision falls short of this noble goal, leaving a poignant mark on the nation’s commitment to justice and equality. It is high time that we recognize the importance of same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights and take meaningful steps towards a more inclusive and equitable society.
