In a recent discussion, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud reaffirmed his stance on the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning same-sex marriage. He described judgments on Constitutional matters as often being a
“vote of conscience.”
Also read- Supreme Court Directs End To Queer Discrimination: A Comprehensive Overview (lawchakra.in)
The CJI’s comments came during the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion co-hosted by Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC, and the Society for Democratic Rights (SDR), New Delhi. He emphasized the significance of the Supreme Court’s 2018 landmark decision to decriminalize consensual homosexual relations, highlighting how it set the stage for subsequent petitions seeking the recognition of same-sex marriages.
Chandrachud stated,
“Sometimes it is a vote of the conscience and vote of the constitution and I stand by what I said.”
He further noted that since the Supreme Court’s inception in 1950, there have been only thirteen instances where the CJI’s opinion was in the minority.
Delving deeper into the same-sex marriage case, he explained,
“I was in minority where I held queer couple can adopt if they are together and then three of my colleagues differed that not allowing queer couples to adopt was discriminatory but then it was for the parliament to decide this.”
The CJI also touched upon the petitions for same-sex marriage recognition under the Special Marriage Act (SMA). He pointed out that the SMA, which was originally designed for a man and woman, raised questions about the court’s jurisdiction in this domain. He said,
“One of the key questions was does the court have the jurisdiction to enter into this domain.”
While the top court unanimously agreed that recognizing queer individuals as equal participants in society was a significant step forward, they believed that legislating on this matter was the role of the parliament. Chandrachud added,
“But where I got into minority was by recognizing civil unions and we held that conscious and subconscious was larger than religion. Three of my colleagues felt that the right to form unions also falls within the role of the parliament.”
CJI Chandrachud emphasized that a judge’s decision should be rooted in “constitutional morality,” grounded in values of liberty, equality, expression, and the unique essence of our civilization, rather than merely reflecting the views of the social majority.
This candid discussion underscores the complexities and nuances of legal decisions, especially when they intersect with deeply held societal beliefs and values.
