Central Idea

The Supreme Court of India has declined to approve same-sex marriages in a blow to LGBTQ rights.
CJI said that it was outside the court’s remit to decide the issue and that parliament should write the laws governing marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage Demand

Petitioners are urging for the reinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, by replacing “man and woman” with “spouses” to accommodate LGBTQIA+ couples.
Such right to marry not only symbolizes equality but also grants access to numerous legal benefits, including insurance, adoption, and inheritance.

Arguments	Summary
Constitutional Basis	Asserted that the right to marry for non-heterosexual couples is implicit in various constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21.
Previous Landmark Judgments	Referenced key Supreme Court judgments such as ‘Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India’ (2018) and ‘KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India’ (2017) to support their case.
Benefits and Rights	Emphasized the importance of equal access to marriage-related benefits and rights, such as pensions and provident funds.
Minimum Marriageable Age	Suggested different minimum marriageable ages for lesbian, gay, and transgender couples based on gender identity.
Recognition of Fundamental Rights	Cited the Transgender Persons Protection Act, 2019, as a precedent recognizing the right to marry for all queer identities.

Arguments	Summary
Maintainability and Jurisdiction	Questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case and raised concerns about the maintainability of the petitions.
Impact on Existing Laws	Argued that introducing marriage equality would impact 160 existing laws, making it the prerogative of Parliament to enact such changes.
SMA Character and Intent	Emphasized that the Special Marriage Act (SMA) was intentionally designed for heterosexual marriages, and changing its character and intent would require legislative action.
Legitimate State Interest	Contended that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriages, addressing aspects such as age of consent, bigamy, and prohibited degrees of marriage.
Welfare of Children	Advocated for prioritizing the welfare of children born to heterosexual parents, leading to differential treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Public Perception	Expressed concerns about societal acceptance and potential collateral damage to various legal provisions if same-sex marriage were declared a fundamental right.

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.
Also, many fundamentalist religious organizations are opposed to such marriages.

It must be noted that only Taiwan and Nepal allow same-sex unions in Asia, where largely conservative values still dominate politics and society.
The Supreme Court’s verdict on marriage equality in India is poised to shape the country’s LGBTQIA+ rights landscape profoundly.

[Sansad TV] Perspective: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage