India’s Supreme Court refuses to legalize same-sex marriage, saying it’s up to Parliament
NEW DELHI (AP) — India’s top court on Tuesday refused to legalize samesex marriages, passing the responsibility back to Parliament in a ruling that disappointed campaigners for LGBTQ+ rights in the world’s most populous country.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud also urged the government to uphold the rights of the queer community and end discrimination against them.
Earlier this year, the fivejudge bench heard 21 petitions that sought to legalize same-sex marriage.
Chandrachud said there were degrees of agreement and disagreement among the justices “on how far we have to go” on same-sex marriages, but the judges unanimously agreed appointing,” said Karuna that the court can’t grant Nundy, one of the lawyers LGBTQ+ people the right representing the petitionto marry because that is a ers. legislative function. Legal rights for LGBTQ+
“This court can’t make people in India have been law. It can only interpret expanding over the past it and give effect to it,” the decade, mostly as a result chief justice said, reiterating of the Supreme Court’s inthat it was up to Parliament tervention. to decide whether it could In 2018, the top court expand marriage laws to struck down a colonial-era include queer unions. law that had made gay sex
One of the petitioners, punishable by up to 10 Mario da Penha, said it was years in prison and expand“a day to be disappointed, ed constitutional rights for but not to lose hope.” the gay community.
“There’s been tremenThe decision was seen dous work that has gone as a historic victory for into these petitions, and LGBTQ+ rights, with one many hopes and dreams judge saying it would “pave of the queer Imperial community Valley Press
the way for a better future.” attached to them — to lead Despite this progress, lives that most other IndiPrime Minister Narendra ans take for granted. The Modi’s government resistfact that the dream could ed the legal recognition of not come to fruition today same-sex marriage and reis a disappointment for all jected several petitions in of us,” he said. favor.
He added that it wasn’t During the hearings, the yet clear if the court had set government argued that a a mandate or timeline for marriage is only between a Parliament to act. biological male and a bio
“Without that mandate, logical woman, adding that there is no pressure on Parsame-sex marriages went liament to enact any legisagainst religious values and lation,” he said. that the petitions reflected
“There are queer couples only “urban elitist views.” today that are already famReligious groups too had ilies and in relationships, opposed same-sex unions, and are pillars of society. saying they went against That they are not afforded Indian culture. the dignity and rights that Adish Aggarwala, the they are due is deeply dis- president of the Supreme
Court bar association, said the court had done the right thing by recognizing that this was a job for Parliament, an argument the government also made during the hearings.
Lawyers for the petitioners argued that marriage is between two people, not just a man and woman. They said concepts of marriage have gradually changed with time and laws should acknowledge that.
By not recognizing such unions, the government was depriving same-sex couples of their right to equality enshrined in the constitution and rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, from adoption and medical insurance to pensions and inheritance, they argued.
“This court needs to push society to acknowledge same-sex marriage,” one of the lawyers said.
Petitioners were hopeful that the Supreme Court could challenge the government’s position.
Some of the justices urged the state to make sure queer couples don’t face harassment or discrimination in accessing basic needs, like opening a joint bank account. They called for steps to raise awareness among the public about queer identity, establish
hotlines and safe houses available for those in the queer community who are facing violence.
The chief justice also rejected the government’s assertion that being queer was an “urban” concept, saying it’s not just “an English-speaking man” or a “white- collar man” who can claim to be queer, but equally, “a woman working in an agricultural job in a village.”
But overall, all five judges stopped short of granting legal recognition to samesex unions.
Instead, the court accepted the government’s offer to set up a special panel that will explore granting social and legal benefits to samesex couples.
Homosexuality has long carried a stigma in India’s traditional society, even though there has been a shift in attitudes toward same-sex couples in recent years. India now has openly gay celebrities and some high-profile Bollywood films have dealt with gay issues. According to a Pew survey, acceptance of homosexuality in India increased by 22 percentage points to 37% between 2013 and 2019.