Sounds like a wise decision by these judges! Like a judgment of Solomon!
However, Western media like Reuters appear to mischaracterize the judgment! This judgment is a very modern interpretation (see below).
Caveat: I am not familiar with the case. Nor am I a legal expert on Indian legal affairs.
"India's top court on Tuesday declined to legalise same-sex marriage and left it to parliament to decide, agreeing with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government that the legislature is the right forum to rule on the contentious issue. ..."
Here is an excerpt from section G. Conclusions and orders of enforcement of the judgement (India's Supreme Court considers "The terms ‘LBGTQ’ and ‘queer’ are used interchangeably and as umbrella expressions to capture the various sexual orientations and gender identities that exist."):
"340. In view of the discussion above, the following are our conclusions:
a. This Court is vested with the authority to hear this case. ...
b. Queerness is a natural phenomenon known to India since ancient times. It is not urban or elite;
c. There is no universal conception of the institution of marriage, nor is it static. ... it lies within the domain of Parliament and the state legislatures to enact laws recognizing and regulating queer marriage;
d. Marriage has attained significance as a legal institution largely because of regulation by the state. By recognizing a relationship in the form of marriage, the state grants material benefits exclusive to marriage;
e. The State has an interest in regulating the ‘intimate zone’ to democratize personal relationships; ...
g. The Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry. An institution cannot be elevated to the realm of a fundamental
right based on the content accorded to it by law. However, several facets
of the marital relationship are reflections of constitutional values
including the right to human dignity and the right to life and personal
liberty; ...
i. The freedom of all persons including queer couples to enter into a union is protected by Part III of the Constitution. The failure of the state to
recognise the bouquet of entitlements which flow from a union would
result in a disparate impact on queer couples who cannot marry under
the current legal regime. The state has an obligation to recognize such
unions and grant them benefit under law;
j. In Article 15(1), the word ‘sex’ must be read to include ‘sexual
orientation’ not only because of the causal relationship between
homophobia and sexism but also because the word ‘sex’ is used as a
marker of identity which cannot be read independent of the social and
historical context;
k. The right to enter into a union cannot be restricted based on sexual
orientation. Such a restriction will be violative of Article 15. Thus, this
freedom is available to all persons regardless of gender identity or
sexual orientation; ...
m. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing law including personal laws which regulate
marriage;
n. Intersex persons who identify as either male or female have the right to marry under existing law including personal laws which regulate
marriage;
o. The state must enable the LGBTQ community to exercise its rights under the Constitution. Queer persons have the right to freedom from coercion from their natal families, agencies of the state including the police, and other persons;
p. Unmarried couples (including queer couples) can jointly adopt a child. ..."
Here is, what I believe, the link to the court's verdict (366 pages): https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/36593/36593_2022_1_1501_47792_Judgement_17-Oct-2023.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment