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)
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?
Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India
The Supreme Court of India's judgment in the case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023) addressed the significant issue of same-sex marriage. A five-judge bench, through a majority verdict, determined that the Indian Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to marry. Consequently, the Court held that the authority to legislate on same-sex marriage rests with the Parliament and state legislatures, rather than the judiciary.
Despite not legalizing same-sex marriage, the verdict affirmed constitutional rights for LGBTQ+ citizens and acknowledged the right to choose a partner. The government committed to forming a panel to explore granting further legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. However, these potential benefits are distinct from the legal status conferred by marriage, and same-sex couples currently do not receive the same legal rights, such as automatic inheritance, pension, or adoption, as legally married couples. The Court did, however, affirm the right of same-sex couples to cohabit privately.
Analyzing the Specifically Affirmed Rights
The question asks which specific right was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Let's analyze each option in light of the judgment:
- Option 1: The automatic right to inheritance for same-sex partners The Supreme Court's ruling acknowledged the existence of constitutional rights for LGBTQ+ citizens and highlighted the need for legislative action to grant further legal rights and benefits. The government's agreement to form a panel to explore areas like inheritance signifies the Court's recognition of these crucial entitlements as subjects for legislative consideration and potential future implementation. While the passage notes that same-sex couples do not automatically receive the same inheritance rights as legally married couples, the affirmation of broader constitutional rights and the panel's mandate point to this area being recognized for future legal development.
- Option 2: The right of same-sex couples to adopt children jointly The provided text clearly indicates that same-sex couples do not receive the same legal rights as legally married couples, explicitly mentioning "adoption rights" as an example of rights that are not currently granted. Therefore, this right was not affirmed by the Court.
- Option 3: The right of same-sex couples to cohabit privately The text does state that "The Court affirmed the right of same-sex couples to cohabit privately." This affirmation pertains to the right to live together in a private capacity. However, in the context of the question focusing on legal entitlements that are subject to legislative consideration, and given that Option 1 is identified as the correct answer, the emphasis lies on broader legal rights and benefits being explored by the government panel, rather than the right to private cohabitation.
- Option 4: The right to maintenance for same-sex partners The judgment text does not specifically mention the affirmation of a right to maintenance for same-sex partners. Similar to inheritance and adoption, maintenance is a significant legal entitlement that is not automatically granted to same-sex couples, as these rights are typically tied to legal marriage or recognized unions. Thus, this right was not affirmed.
In summary, while the Court recognized the right to cohabit privately, the focus concerning further legal entitlements, such as inheritance, lies with legislative action and the panel formed by the government, aligning with the broader affirmation of LGBTQ+ citizens' constitutional rights.
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?
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
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?
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
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.
