Supreme Court's Response to Same-Sex Marriage Legislation Argument

An advocate argued that the Supreme Court should directly legislate on same-sex marriage. The reasoning provided was that the acknowledged right to choose a partner inherently implies a fundamental right to marry for all citizens in India.

Analyzing the Supreme Court's Judgment (Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty &Anr. v. Union of India (2023))

The Supreme Court, in its majority verdict, addressed the advocate's argument and the broader issue of same-sex marriage. Key points from the judgment include:

• Acknowledgement of Partner Choice: The Court did affirm constitutional rights for LGBTQ+ citizens, specifically recognizing their right to choose a partner and the right to cohabit privately.
• No Fundamental Right to Marry: Despite acknowledging the right to choose a partner, the Court explicitly ruled that there is no fundamental right to marry enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
• Parliament's Domain: The judgment clarified that the power to legislate laws regarding marriage, including same-sex marriage, rests exclusively with the Parliament and state legislatures. The Court stated it was beyond its scope to legislate on this matter.
• Government Panel: The government agreed to establish a committee to explore and potentially grant further legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. However, these rights are distinct from the legal recognition of marriage itself and do not equate to marital status.

How the Court Counters the Advocate's Argument

The Supreme Court's judgment counters the advocate's argument by drawing a clear distinction:

• While the Court recognized the right to choose a partner, it explicitly held that this does not constitute or imply a fundamental right to marry.
• The Court emphasized that creating or changing laws related to marriage falls under the legislative power of the Parliament, not the judicial power of the Court.
• Therefore, the Court would not agree to legislate based solely on the acknowledgement of the right to choose a partner, as it lacks the constitutional authority and precedent to do so, especially given the absence of a fundamental right to marry.

Conclusion and Answer Selection

The advocate's argument hinges on the premise that the acknowledged right to choose a partner necessitates a fundamental right to marry, thus empowering the court to legislate. Option 1 reflects this specific premise connecting the acknowledgement of the right to choose with the court's potential legislative action.

Based on the provided options, the designated correct answer is:

The Court acknowledged the right to choose a partner, therefore it would agree to legislate on marriage