Editor's Pick: Supreme Court says it cannot legalise same-sex marriage

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that only the legislature can recognise or regulate same-sex marriage. It reasoned that since there was no fundamental or unqualified right to marry, the courts cannot intervene. The Bench could not establish consensus on providing even long-abiding relationships between same-sex couples the status of a legally recognised “civil union.” This was notwithstanding the fact that all the judges unanimously accepted that it was time to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Sharing a minority voice on the bench were Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud along with Justice Sanjay Kaul, who held that queer people had the right to form relationships and the State was obligated to recognise and grant legal status to such unions. This is so that same-sex couples could avail of the material benefits usually provided by the law to individuals in heterosexual marriages. The majority Bench however argued that legal status can be conferred only through enacted law. The Bench refused to tinker with the Special Marriage Act. Chief Justice Chandrachud held it was within the legislative domain to rid the 1954 Act of its “institutional limitations”. However, Justice Bhat found the plea to read various provision of the Act in a gender-neutral manner, to confer same-sex marriages their legal status, “unsustainable”. It was held that the judgement decriminalising homosexuality in 2018 could not be extended to legal recognition of queer unions. Importantly, however, Justice Bhat stated that the next step in due course would be to create a regulatory framework or an “edifice of governance to give meaningful realisation to the right to enter into a union, whether termed as marriage or a union.” He urged the Centre to constitute a high-powered committee to set out scope of benefits available to such unions. The majority Bench however contended that “a sequitur of this is that the court cannot enjoin or direct the creation of such regulatory framework resulting in legal status.” Revisit the entire legal journey through our collection of stories pertaining to the same-sex marriage hearings here. The Hindu’s Editorial Law and custom: On the Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage Back in business: On the New Zealand election result The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz When is the Supreme Court set to hear a challenge to the validity of the electoral bonds scheme, which facilitates anonymous donations to political parties? October 10 January 7 November 30 October 31 To know the answer and to play the full quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 18 October 2023 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Supreme Court says it cannot legalise same-sex marriage A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday [held that only the legislature can recognise or regulate same-sex marriage.]( It reasoned that since there was no fundamental or unqualified right to marry, the courts cannot intervene. The Bench could not establish consensus on providing even long-abiding relationships between same-sex couples the status of a legally recognised “civil union.” This was notwithstanding the fact that all the judges unanimously accepted that it was time to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Sharing a minority voice on the bench were Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud along with Justice Sanjay Kaul, who held that queer people had the right to form relationships and the State was obligated to recognise and grant legal status to such unions. This is so that same-sex couples could avail of the material benefits usually provided by the law to individuals in heterosexual marriages.  The majority Bench however argued that legal status can be conferred only through enacted law. The Bench refused to tinker with the Special Marriage Act. Chief Justice Chandrachud held it was within the legislative domain to rid the 1954 Act of its “institutional limitations”. However, Justice Bhat found the plea to read various provision of the Act in a gender-neutral manner, to confer same-sex marriages their legal status, “unsustainable”.  It was held that the judgement decriminalising homosexuality in 2018 could not be extended to legal recognition of queer unions. Importantly, however, Justice Bhat stated that the next step in due course would be to create a regulatory framework or an “edifice of governance to give meaningful realisation to the right to enter into a union, whether termed as marriage or a union.” He urged the Centre to constitute a high-powered committee to set out scope of benefits available to such unions. The majority Bench however contended that “a sequitur of this is that the court cannot enjoin or direct the creation of such regulatory framework resulting in legal status.” Revisit the entire legal journey through our collection of stories pertaining to the same-sex marriage hearings [here.]( The Hindu’s Editorial [Arrow][Law and custom: On the Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage]( [Arrow][Back in business: On the New Zealand election result]( The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz When is the Supreme Court set to hear a challenge to the validity of the electoral bonds scheme, which facilitates anonymous donations to political parties? - October 10 - January 7 - November 30 - October 31 To know the answer and to play the full quiz, [click here](. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Best Reads [[Demolishing the frame from outside the Constitution] Demolishing the frame from outside the Constitution]( [[Why are earthquakes frequent in Afghanistan? | Explained] Why are earthquakes frequent in Afghanistan? | Explained]( [[From sati to interfaith marriages, institution of marriage has undergone sea change: SC] From sati to interfaith marriages, institution of marriage has undergone sea change: SC]( [[When tigers and jackals get the same protection] When tigers and jackals get the same protection]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](