'Homosexuality not urban elitist concept': What SC judges said on same-sex marriage

CJI Chandrachud said that queer people and couple can't be discriminated against and must get all the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Homosexuality isn't an urban elitist concept, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said on Tuesday, while announcing his verdict on petitions demanding legal status to same-sex marriages. Observing that marriage can't remain a static, stagnant or unchanging institution, he said he can't compel Parliament or state assemblies to create “a new institution of marriage”. He added queer people and couple can't be discriminated against and must get all the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Here are the top quotes from the verdict.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud during pronouncement of verdict on same-sex marriages. (PTI)

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud

#Homosexuality isn't an urban elitist concept.

#Gender queerness isn't about status or affluence.

#Marriage can't remain a static, stagnant or unchanging institution.

#Can't compel Parliament or state assemblies to create a new institution of marriage.

#Can't hold SMA unconstitutional just because it doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.

#Can't redraft SMA or other legal provisions to substitute "man" and "woman" or "husband" and "wife".. There can't be judicial legislation.

#Right to enter into an union must lead to a recognition by the State for fulfillment of such a right.

#Equality demands queer persons and couples aren't discriminated & all benefits flowing to the heterosexual couples from the State must also flow to queer couples.

#Can't assume only heterosexual couples can be good parents.

Justice SK Kaul agrees with CJI on recognition of civil unions

#Principle of equality demands all people have the right to unions irrespective of sex, gender or orientation.

#Non-heterosexual unions and heterosexual unions must be seen as both sides of the same coin.

#This moment is an opportunity to remedy the historical injustice and discrimination and thus, governance needed to grant rights to such unions or marriages.

Justice Bhat

#Queerness is neither urban nor elitist. However, I do not agree with the directions issued by the CJI.

#Courts can't create a social or legal institution for non-heterosexual couples.

#There's no unqualified right to marry and a consequent recognition by the State.

#Can't put State under any obligation when there's no constitutional right to marry or legal recognition of unions among non-heterosexual couples.

#Justice Bhat dissents with the CJI on issuing an array of directions to State.

#Can't give queer couples right to jointly adopt

#There can't a right to civil unions through judicial orders.

#The overarching regime enunciated in the CJI's judgment doesn't hold good after declaring that there's no fundamental right to marry. Also, right to settle, cohabit, non-discrimination, are already rooted in the Constitution.

#Courts must exercise restraint and leave it to legislature to decide this issue through debates, discussion and policy decisions.

Justice Narasimha

#Right to marry is just a statutory right.

#It's not a constitutional right.

#There can't be a right to civil union.