Same-sex marriage has no legal recognition in India as per the recent Supreme Court's judgment, where it was decided that this is an issue for Parliament to address. While Hindu marriages between transgender persons and cisgender men are permissible, and the Court acknowledged systemic discrimination and the right to choose a partner, it held that there is no fundamental right to marry. The government has been urged to form a panel to consider granting more legal rights to same-sex couples, but the legal status of marriage remains unchanged for now. The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty &Anr. v. Union of India (2023), in a majority verdict, ruled that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, making it beyond the court's scope to legislate on same-sex marriage. The Court stated that the power to legislate on same-sex marriage rests with the Parliament and state legislatures. The judgment affirmed constitutional rights for LGBTQ+ citizens and the right to choose a partner. The government agreed to set up a panel to explore legal rights and benefits for same-sex couples, though these benefits are not the same as those conferred by marriage. Same-sex couples cannot legally marry and do not receive the same legal rights, such as automatic inheritance, pension, or adoption rights, that legally married couples do. Despite the ruling, LGBTQ+ couples continue to face legal discrimination and have no social recognition of marriage. The Court affirmed the right of same-sex couples to cohabit privately. While the Supreme Court's verdict brought limited benefits and acknowledgments, it has not legalized same-sex marriage in India, deferring the ultimate decision to the Parliament. (279 words) [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from ‘‘The Hindu’’, dated 27th October 2023)
Ramesh and Suresh, a same-sex couple in India, have lived together for a decade and want to ensure they receive legal benefits equivalent to those of married couples, such as automatic inheritance and pension rights. Based on the Supreme Court's judgment, what is the primary obstacle they face in achieving these benefits
They cannot legally marry and therefore cannot automatically be entitled to these specific legal rights
Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023), addressed the issue of same-sex marriage. A key outcome of the judgment was the decision that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution. The Court determined that legislating on same-sex marriage falls under the purview of the Parliament and state legislatures, not the judiciary.
Understanding Legal Rights for Same-Sex Couples
Following the verdict, while the Court acknowledged the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ citizens and affirmed their right to cohabit, it did not legalize same-sex marriage. The government was urged to form a committee to explore granting certain legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. However, the text explicitly states these rights are distinct from marriage rights and do not equate to the automatic legal benefits conferred upon legally married couples.
Analyzing Ramesh and Suresh's Obstacle
Ramesh and Suresh, a same-sex couple, wish to secure legal benefits like automatic inheritance and pension rights, which are typically associated with marriage. Based on the Supreme Court's judgment as described:
- The primary obstacle stems from the lack of legal recognition for same-sex marriage in India.
- The judgment clarified that the right to marry is not a fundamental right, and the power to enact laws for same-sex marriage rests with the legislative bodies.
- Consequently, same-sex couples cannot access marriage-related benefits automatically.
Evaluating the Options
Let's examine why the options are relevant to Ramesh and Suresh's situation:
- Option 1: The formation of a government panel was suggested to explore rights, but the text does not indicate this panel handles marriage registration or directly grants marriage-equivalent benefits.
- Option 2: This option directly addresses the core issue. The inability to legally marry means same-sex couples cannot automatically gain the legal rights and benefits, such as inheritance and pension, that are tied to the legal status of marriage. This aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling.
- Option 3: While the judgment noted specific circumstances regarding transgender individuals, it did not limit the denial of marriage rights solely based on whether a partner is transgender. The main barrier is the lack of legal marriage recognition for same-sex unions in general.
- Option 4: The provided text does not suggest religious conversion as a pathway to obtaining state-recognized legal benefits equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples. The legal framework discussed is secular.
Therefore, the principal barrier for Ramesh and Suresh in obtaining benefits like automatic inheritance and pension rights is the current legal status of same-sex marriage in India, as upheld by the Supreme Court's decision.
Similar Questions
During a legal proceeding in India, an advocate argues that the Supreme Court should directly legislate on same-sex marriage because the right to choose a partner inherently implies a fundamental right to marry for all citizens. How would the Supreme Court's judgment likely to counter this argument?
Following the Supreme Court's decision, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group in India aims to achieve legal recognition for same-sex marriage. To which governmental body or bodies should this group primarily direct its lobbying efforts to secure the necessary legislation?
While same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in India, however, the Supreme Court's verdict did offer some acknowledgments of rights for same-sex couples. Which of the following rights was specifically affirmed by the Court?
The new acronym that is evolved after LGBTQ+ is an acronym called LGBTQIA+. In this new acronym ‘IA’ refers to:
- Which of the following Constitution Amendment Bill deals with empowerment of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to implement simultaneous state and national elections.
- The object of One Nation, One Ration Card scheme is to benefit:
According to the passage, the relationship between the Constitution and the Preamble can best be described as:
- What did the earliest draft of the Preamble emphasize?
- Which of the following is not enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India?
- Which has been rightly arranged according to the Preamble of the Constitution of India-
Important Questions from Indian Constitution
During a legal proceeding in India, an advocate argues that the Supreme Court should directly legislate on same-sex marriage because the right to choose a partner inherently implies a fundamental right to marry for all citizens. How would the Supreme Court's judgment likely to counter this argument?
Following the Supreme Court's decision, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group in India aims to achieve legal recognition for same-sex marriage. To which governmental body or bodies should this group primarily direct its lobbying efforts to secure the necessary legislation?
While same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in India, however, the Supreme Court's verdict did offer some acknowledgments of rights for same-sex couples. Which of the following rights was specifically affirmed by the Court?
The new acronym that is evolved after LGBTQ+ is an acronym called LGBTQIA+. In this new acronym ‘IA’ refers to:
- Which of the following Constitution Amendment Bill deals with empowerment of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to implement simultaneous state and national elections.
