Washington, DC: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud referred to the latest Supreme Court judgement on the same-sex marriage by a five-judge bench, and stated that he stands by his minority stance in favour of civil unions of queer {couples} as it’s “sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution”. The CJI was talking on the third Comparative Constitutional Law dialogue on the subject ‘Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States’. The occasion was hosted by Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
“I do believe it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution. And I stand by what I said,” he stated.
The Supreme Court not too long ago delivered its 3-2 verdict on a batch of petitions in search of authorized sanction of same-sex marriage and determined in opposition to interfering with the Special Marriage Act. The bench left it to the Parliament to take a choice on the matter of granting marriage equality to queer {couples}.
What did CJI say on the matter?
The CJI reiterated his minority choice of giving rights to affiliation whereas the bulk of his colleagues on the bench felt that recognising a proper to kind unions was past the standard area and that it should be left to Parliament.
He stated that almost all of judges on the bench didn’t help his conclusion of adoption of rights for queer {couples}.
Citing 13 cases the place he was within the minority whereas delivering a judgement, CJI Chandrachud stated that the bench concluded that legislating on the precise to marry for queer group falls within the Parliament’s area.
“By the unanimous verdict of all the five judges on the bench, we came to the conclusion that while we have progressed a great deal in terms of decriminalising homosexuality and recognising people belonging to the queer community as equal participants in our society, legislating on the right to marry is something that falls within the domain of Parliament,” the CJI stated.
“But three of my colleagues felt that recognising a right to form unions was again beyond the traditional domain and that it must be left to Parliament,” he defined on differing with the opposite three judges on the bench on the difficulty.
He added that three of his colleagues additionally felt that the absence of recognition of the precise to undertake by queer unions was discriminatory however that’s one thing that needed to be addressed by Parliament.
(With ANI inputs)
ALSO READ | Supreme Court refuses to recognise same-sex marriage. Who stated what
