24 October,2023 06:40 PM IST | Delhi | PTI
Supreme Court/ File Photo
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has defended his minority verdict on some aspects pertaining to same-sex marriages and said he stood by it as the judicial opinions are sometimes a "vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution".
On October 17, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by the CJI unanimously refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was "no unqualified right" to marriage.
However, the CJI and Justice SK Kaul were in the minority on the issues of the right to form civil unions and the right to adoption of queer couples.
Speaking candidly at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion co-hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center, Washington and the Society for Democratic Rights (SDR), New Delhi about him being in the minority in the same-sex marriage judgements, the CJI said, "I do believe it (judgement) is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution and I stand by what I said." He said the CJIs have been in the minority on rare occasions.
ALSO READ
Long queues at voting centres as first ever hawkers polls in city begin
'Ensure local body election in Ahmednagar conducted in 'right earnest''
West Bengal: Junior doctors' stir over RG Kar horror to continue despite SC direction
Kolkata doctor rape-murder: SC expresses concern over missing autopsy document
Important matters heard by Supreme Court on Monday
"But there are 13 significant cases in our history where the Chief Justice has been in a minority. And, I do believe, sometimes it is a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution and I stand by what I said," he said.
"Therefore, we said that, well, it's time for Parliament to act. Apart from that, that's where I got into a minority. I said, though we cannot therefore entrench into the domain of Parliament. Nonetheless, there were sufficient foundation principles in our Constitution, to allow for recognition of same-sex unions in terms of civil unions," he elaborated.
"Three of my colleagues, another colleague joined me in this, but three of my colleagues felt that to recognise a right of forming unions was again beyond the judicial domain and that it must be left to Parliament," the CJI said.
On the fundamental issue as to whether same-sex couples should have the right to form binding unions and cohabit traditional relationships, three of my colleagues, though they recognised that they do have the right, he said, "We cannot elevate this to a constitutional right."
"The other area in which I was in a minority was whether same-sex couples have the right to adopt... I said that well, same-sex couples and queer couples have the right to adopt a child because under Indian law, a single individual can adopt a child, and a woman can adopt a child. So, I said if they are together, there is no reason to deny them the right to adopt the child merely because they are in a queer relationship," he said.
"So on the broader aspect, there was a unanimity, but on the right to form unions and adoptions, I was in a minority of two as against three of my colleagues," the CJI said.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever
