Supreme Court BIG Verdict: Unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child, Rules Supreme Court: KNOW KEY OBSERVATIONS
The Supreme Court has held that unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child.
The Indian Supreme Court is reading out its ruling on whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized in India, five years after it invalidated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. On May 11, a five-judge panel reserved judgment on a group of 20 petitions submitted by same-sex couples, transgender people, and LGBTQ+ groups. The trial began on April 18.
The supreme court was asked to rule that “marriage” under the Special Marriage Act of 1954 should be interpreted as between “spouse” rather than “man and woman” by the petitioners.
The five judges bench of the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha presided over.
“Exciting news! JURISHOUR is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest Legal insights!” Click here! You may also join whatsapp group by clicking here
Here are Key outcomes:
- Juvenile Justice Act does not preclude unmarried couples from adopting
CJI DY Chandrachud said the Juvenile Justice Act does not preclude unmarried couples from adopting and the Union of India has not proved that precluding unmarried couples from adopting is in the best interest of the child. From this, he concluded that the Central Adoption Resource Authority exceeded its authority in barring unmarried couples.
There is no material on record to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child.
2. Excluding queer couples from adoption amounts to discrimination
CJI DY Chandrachud said Regulation 5(3) of the Central Adoption Resource Authority, which excludes queer couples from adoption, is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution.
3. ‘Queerness is not urban or elite
CJI DY Chandrachud said queerness is not urban or elite. Homosexuality or queerness is not an urban concept or restricted to the upper classes of society, said Chandrachud.
The central government had argued during the hearings that the idea of legalising same-sex marriage is an “urban elite” issue.
4. Directions to end discrimination against LGBTQ+ community
The Union government, governments of states and Union Territories are directed to ensure that:
i. The queer community is not discriminated against.
ii. There is no discrimination in access to goods and services.
iii. Sensitise the public about queer rights.
iv. Create a hotline for the queer community.
v. Create safe houses for queer couples.
vi. Ensure inter-sex children are not forced to undergo operations. No person shall be forced to undergo any hormonal therapy.
5. Queer persons cannot be summoned to police stations to enquire about their sexual identity
CJI DY Chandrachud said queer persons cannot be summoned to a police station just to enquire about their sexual identity. Police should not force queer persons to return to their natal family, he added.
6. Right to enter into union cannot be restricted on basis of sexual orientation
CJI Chandrachud said the right to enter into a union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation. He added that transgender individuals in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing laws, including personal laws.
7. Need for anti-discrimination law
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said he agrees with CJI DY Chandrachud that there is a need for an anti-discrimination law. He said the law should address intersectional discrimination.
8. Marriage exists regardless of State
Justice S Ravindra Bhat said marriage has historically been a union solemnised by custom and personal law. He added that the Supreme Court has recognised that marriage is a social institution. He argued that marriage as an institution precedes the State, meaning the marriage structure exists regardless of the State.
9. Gender neutral interpretation of Special Marriage Act may not always be good
A gender neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act may not always be equitable and could result in women being exposed to vulnerabilities in an unintended manner, said Justice Ravindra Bhat. “If Section 4 is to be read in a gender-neutral manner, the interplay of other provisions will lead to anomalous results, rendering the Special Marriage Act unworkable,” he added.
10. Denial of benefits like PF, pension to queer partners may have adverse discriminatory effect
Denial of benefits like Provident Fund, insurance and pensions to queer partners may have adverse discriminatory effects, said Justice Ravindra Bhat. He then pointed out that the central government said it would form a committee to look into such issues on May 3.
“Exciting news! JURISHOUR is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest Legal insights!” Click here! You may also join whatsapp group by clicking here
