E-Paper
What Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said on SC same-sex marriage verdict
The five-judge constitution bench today refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court judgement on same-sex marriages balances the interests of individuals with the interests of a civilised society, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre, said on Tuesday.
The five-judge constitution bench today refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, ruling that changing the law for validating such union was under Parliament's purview.
"It is an important step in jurisprudential development on the question of separation of powers and provides vivid and eloquent insights into the working of the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary which functions complement each other strictly as per the Constitution," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said.
The Supreme Court, however, said queer people mustn't be discriminated against. The court observed there was "no unqualified right" to marriage, and same-sex couples can't claim it as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Also read: SC refuses to legalise same-sex marriage, says queer couples have right to cohabit
The bench, however, took exception to the Centre's contention that the pleas for legal validation of same-sex marriage was reflective of an urban elitist concept. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while delivering his verdict, said queerness is neither an urban nor an elite concept or characteristic.
The court said it can't make laws but only interpret them. It said it was for Parliament to make changes to the Special Marriage Act.
The court also didn't recognise the right to jointly adopt children.
Also read: ‘End discrimination against queer couple,’ SC says. Lists out directions
Welcoming the judgement, Mehta said, "I wholeheartedly welcome the judgment. I am happy that my stand has been accepted. All four judgements have taken the jurisprudence of our nation and the intellectual exercise which went into writing the judgments to the next level. There are very few courts in the world where one can expect this level of intellectual and scholarly judicial exercise. This judgement would be read across jurisdictions."
With inputs from ANI
