Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Monday said he stands by his minority judgement in favour of civil unions of queer couples, as sometimes it is a “vote of the conscience and a vote of the constitution”.
CJI Chandrachud was speaking at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion on the topic ‘Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States’.
The event 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,” the CJI said.
He also stood by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, during a hearing on a batch of petitions seeking legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
The bench decided against interfering with the Special Marriage Act and leaving the Parliament to take a decision over the issue of granting marriage equality to queer couples.
The CJI also reiterated its minority decision of giving rights to association while the majority of his colleagues on the bench felt that recognising a right to form unions was again beyond the traditional domain and that it must be left to Parliament.
He said his conclusion of adoption rights for queer couples was not supported by the majority of judges on the bench.
The CJI also cited 13 instances where he was in the minority while delivering significant judgements.
“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 said.
On differing with the three other judges on the bench on the issue of civil unions and the adoption rights of queer couples, the CJI added, “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 added that three of his colleagues also felt that the absence of recognition of the right to adopt by queer unions was discriminatory but that is something that had to be addressed by Parliament.