India's Supreme Court will hear on November 28 a bunch of review petitions on its verdict that had refused to recognise same-sex marriages as legal.

The October 17 judgment had not granted legal recognition to same-sex couples and stated that only the state legislatures and parliament have the right to validate their marital unions. 
 
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud by senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and the CJI was requested to ensure that the review petition is taken up before five judges for consideration on November 28, which is the tentative date given by the court registry. 
 
Various other lawyers, who had appeared earlier in the matter, were also present when the request was made by Rohatgi. 
 
“We have also sought an open court hearing. It is tentatively listed on November 28. Let it not be deleted. Apart from this, majority or minority, both views have held that there is a discrimination (against LGBTQ+ couples). If there is discrimination, there also has to be a remedy. This is why we have pressed for an open court hearing,” Rohatgi stated.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-former-sc-judge-indu-malhotra-explains-why-legislation-is-quintessential-in-india-648108">Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India</a>

Responding to the request, the CJI stated that he would go through the review petitions and that they would consider appropriately the lawyers’ plea for an open court hearing. 
 
A review petition generally comes before the same panel of judges and gets circulated in their chambers and a decision is taken without an open court hearing. However, if some merit is found by the judges in the review plea, they are free to allow an open court hearing and oral arguments. 
 
Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who was among the five judges who were part of the same-sex marriage bench, retired on October 20 which meant that the CJI needed to add a new judge to the bench for the review petitions.

<h2>CJI to assign date for consideration of review petitions</h2>

The CJI will assign a date for considering the review petitions.

The judgement given by the Supreme Court on October 17 by a 3-2 majority had refused to give legal sanction to same-sex marriage and also did not grant constitutional protection to civil unions as well as adoption rights for queer couples.

Watch:&nbsp;Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise same-sex marriage

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/same-sex-marriage-indias-top-court-refuses-to-legalise-same-sex-marriage-648084/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In the petition filed through Karanjawala &amp; Co by US-based lawyer Udit Sood and 51 other petitioners, Sood said, “The majority ruling is self-contradictory, facially erroneous and deeply unjust. The majority found that queer Indians endure severe discrimination at the hands of the State, declared that discrimination must be prohibited, and then did not take the logical next step of enjoining the discrimination.” 
 
“Our Constitution primarily tasks this Hon’ble court — not the respondents (Centre) — with upholding fundamental rights. To find that the petitioners are enduring discrimination, but then turn them away with best wishes for the future, conforms neither with this Hon’ble court’s constitutional obligation towards queer Indians nor with the separation of power contemplated in our Constitution,” the petition added.

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court will hear on November 28 a bunch of review petitions on its verdict that had refused to recognise same-sex marriages as legal. The October 17 judgment had not granted legal recognition to same-sex couples and stated that only the state legislatures and parliament have the right to validate their marital unions.

India's Supreme Court will hear on November 28 a bunch of review petitions on its verdict that had refused to recognise same-sex marriages as legal. The October 17 judgment had not granted legal recognition to same-sex couples and stated that only the state legislatures and parliament have the right to validate their marital unions. The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud by senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and the CJI was requested to ensure that the review petition is taken up before five judges for consideration on November 28, which is the tentative date given by the court registry. Various other lawyers, who had appeared earlier in the matter, were also present when the request was made by Rohatgi. “We have also sought an open court hearing. It is tentatively listed on November 28. Let it not be deleted. Apart from this, majority or minority, both views have held that there is a discrimination (against LGBTQ+ couples). If there is discrimination, there also has to be a remedy. This is why we have pressed for an open court hearing,” Rohatgi stated. Also read: Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India Responding to the request, the CJI stated that he would go through the review petitions and that they would consider appropriately the lawyers’ plea for an open court hearing. A review petition generally comes before the same panel of judges and gets circulated in their chambers and a decision is taken without an open court hearing. However, if some merit is found by the judges in the review plea, they are free to allow an open court hearing and oral arguments. Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who was among the five judges who were part of the same-sex marriage bench, retired on October 20 which meant that the CJI needed to add a new judge to the bench for the review petitions. CJI to assign date for consideration of review petitions The CJI will assign a date for considering the review petitions. The judgement given by the Supreme Court on October 17 by a 3-2 majority had refused to give legal sanction to same-sex marriage and also did not grant constitutional protection to civil unions as well as adoption rights for queer couples. Watch: Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise same-sex marriage In the petition filed through Karanjawala & Co by US-based lawyer Udit Sood and 51 other petitioners, Sood said, “The majority ruling is self-contradictory, facially erroneous and deeply unjust. The majority found that queer Indians endure severe discrimination at the hands of the State, declared that discrimination must be prohibited, and then did not take the logical next step of enjoining the discrimination.” “Our Constitution primarily tasks this Hon’ble court — not the respondents (Centre) — with upholding fundamental rights. To find that the petitioners are enduring discrimination, but then turn them away with best wishes for the future, conforms neither with this Hon’ble court’s constitutional obligation towards queer Indians nor with the separation of power contemplated in our Constitution,” the petition added. (With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court to consider petitions on same-sex marriage verdict

At the outset, I endorse a dilemma frequently hinged with the Indian Constitution. Where do we position the constitutional discourse? Which strata of society is appropriately placed to nurture and cherish the blossoming of constitutional deliberations? Should we place it in the middle-class discourses, fighting their daily life to make a living for themselves, with a certain (or even more) amount of conservatism lurking in their domestic&nbsp;lives? Or should it be placed with the marginalised sections of the society, for whom even a two-time meal is a luxury?&nbsp;Or is there really an urban elite better positioned to comprehend and deliberate on the good or bad of society? Where do we really set the constitutional discourse? It is an important question to answer, as it is the outlook of the constitution which determines the destiny it will lead to.

In the Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India pertaining to same-sex marriage rights of the queer group, the honourable Supreme Court, at the outset, has done a remarkable job by dealing with a sensitive and intricate question about individual and collective rights, which to a large extent has been unanswered or even not mentioned in the Parliamentary discourses. This is the ethical role we imagined the court of law to play, to provide voices to the most marginalised and unheard voices which are not able to make a mark in the parliamentary chambers due to paucity of representation, either due to lack of sufficient numeric strength in the constituencies or the mere lack of apathy from the representative to their voices. However, in such matters of sensitivity, polyvocality of opinions (running into hundreds of pages) might not go well with many, having four opinions in a bench of five judges, does bring some elements of uncertainty, but it surely goes well with the argumentation(al) temperament of the constitution.

The credit must go to the Master of Roster, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, for the formulation of such a bench which was open to such vivid and diverse argumentation in the course of a hearing.

In the present case, an earnest effort has been made by the court to recognise as many rights as possible within their jurisdictional arena. Special mention needs to be given to Justice Chandrachud for his dissenting opinion, wherein the judge has attempted to give a marriage-like status to the civil union of two individuals.

Justice Chandrachud emphasises the functional/operational aspect of Article 19 (1) (c), (e), (a), 21 &amp; 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution. The freedom to settle and the freedom to create a union cannot fully be operationalised till the time there is ‘State &amp; Non-State Violence’ against individuals for their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Justice Chandrachud accepts the fact that marriage as an institution, and as recognised and regulated by the state, cannot be made a fundamental right. Neither will it be&nbsp;possible for the Supreme Court under the present legal matrix to recognise the marriage rights of individuals belonging to queer groups. In simple fact, the relevant law under which this right could have been considered was the Special Marriage Act, of 1954.

Justice Chandrachud emphasises that the provision of the Act is under-worded and thus indirectly discriminates against the queer group, building his arguments in line with Navtej Singh Johar (2018), Shakti Vahani (2018), Nalsa (2014) and K.S. Puttaswamy-I (2018). Emphasising more on individual liberty, dignity and the choices they make. However, he also agrees, that the Separation of Power being a part of the Indian Constitution, it is for the legislative deliberations to frame laws and policy on the matter. In an elaborative judgment, Justice Chandrachud has laid down an extensive direction for the Governments for safeguarding the civil union between individuals from queer groups, right from sensitisation of the people about LGBTQ rights, to ordering the criteria (such as joint bank account, ration card etc.) that the Committee should take into consideration while deliberating on the rights of the queer group. It can briefly be said that Justice Chandrachud has made an all-out attempt to provide marriage-like status to the civil union of the individuals from the queer group, even adoption rights.

The approach of Justice Chandrachud can be summarised as ‘rights from wrong approach’, an approach propounded by Allan Dershowitz. It is a commonly referred approach under Comparative Constitutional Law. It is believed that every right propounded is based on a past injustice. An example could be Germany. The modern German Constitution is pro-fundamental rights and human rights-centric. Germany saw a bad past of the holocaust, and it comes as a lesson for them to create a more stable society in line with human dignity. Throughout his opinion, Justice Chandrachud has emphasised the marginalisation faced by the queer group due to the insensitivity of the state and the non-state actors. Granting them equal status in the form of a civil union (and all the benefits attached to it) was a way to compensate them for the wrongs committed in the past.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-former-sc-judge-indu-malhotra-explains-why-legislation-is-quintessential-in-india-648108">Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India</a>

However, the majority opinion led by Justice Ravindra Bhat (concurred by Justice Hima Kohli and a separate concurring opinion of Justice PS Narashima) did not endorse the opinion of Justice Chandrachud and was practically correct. Knowing that the Separation of Power is a part of the Basic Structure, it is not prudent, legally or even ethically, for the Court of Law to create an institution parallel to marriage. Justice Bhat categorically emphasises that a right does not always create a positive obligation to the extent that the Court can lay down the law for it. Merely having a right to civil union does not obligate the state to create the socio-legal groundwork for facilitating the right. The Court surely cannot do this work, it is upon the executive deliberation to fixate an appropriate time. However, it is interesting to mention that the majority opinion does concur with the dissenting that the ‘Right to Marriage’ cannot be unqualified.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-courts-verdict-quashed-the-hopes-of-millions-say-lgbt-rights-activists-648059">Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists</a>

From a jurisprudential aspect, the judgement needs to be analysed from three perspectives: legal, moral and sociological (a reference to this can be found in the book of Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law: Chapter 39). The legal aspect deals with the legality of the judgement, on that front this judgment is completely sound, following the principles of the Indian Constitution to the point. However, on a moral and sociological front this judgement might be passing through grace marks. The moral aspect of the judgment raises questions regarding the ethical responsibility of the Court, as in, why does a Court exist?

Prof&nbsp;Rohit De (author of the book A People’s Constitution) says in a democratic country, the Court plays a major role in being a forum of representation for unheard voices. The whole concept of Judicial Review originated from this ethical necessity of an independent arbiter, who will arbitrate the rights of the individual against the State. On this front, the judgment has partially succeeded, as already mentioned earlier, at least the judgment brought the discourse regarding queer group and their rights to the forefront in the public domain, wherein it will be discussed in every household of the country. Though the judgment has not given the desired result, yet a discourse of the unheard will go a long way in creating a route. As Prof. Yogesh Pratap Singh (author of the book Judicial Dissent and Indian Supreme Court) says, possibly a dissenting opinion at present will gain traction in the near future and a jurisprudence for tomorrow.

On the sociological aspect, the question is whether the judgement is well-accepted or not, and when we talk about acceptance of judgement, we do not refer to the mass population of India giving their acceptance to the judgement. We refer to the stakeholders of judgement (the mention of such arguments on legal, moral and political legitimacy can be seen in the Book Democracy and Constitutionalism in India), the stakeholders under this judgement will be the queer community and the legal diaspora. There are mixed reviews which have come for the judgement, most of the members of queer groups are disheartened. However, it is interesting to see that this has been portrayed as a failure of the Court to not recognise marital rights, several of the prime legal websites in their snippets have lambasted the judiciary for their failure to uphold the marital rights of queer groups. But that is not the truth, the judiciary has done a remarkable job to the extent it was legally possible. The sociological acceptance of the judgement depends on the public perception created by the media channels, and legal news platforms, it seems they have failed to portray the real picture.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

At the outset, I endorse a dilemma frequently hinged with the Indian Constitution. Where do we position the constitutional discourse? Which strata of society is appropriately placed to nurture and cherish the blossoming of constitutional deliberations?

At the outset, I endorse a dilemma frequently hinged with the Indian Constitution. Where do we position the constitutional discourse? Which strata of society is appropriately placed to nurture and cherish the blossoming of constitutional deliberations? Should we place it in the middle-class discourses, fighting their daily life to make a living for themselves, with a certain (or even more) amount of conservatism lurking in their domestic lives? Or should it be placed with the marginalised sections of the society, for whom even a two-time meal is a luxury? Or is there really an urban elite better positioned to comprehend and deliberate on the good or bad of society? Where do we really set the constitutional discourse? It is an important question to answer, as it is the outlook of the constitution which determines the destiny it will lead to. In the Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India pertaining to same-sex marriage rights of the queer group, the honourable Supreme Court, at the outset, has done a remarkable job by dealing with a sensitive and intricate question about individual and collective rights, which to a large extent has been unanswered or even not mentioned in the Parliamentary discourses. This is the ethical role we imagined the court of law to play, to provide voices to the most marginalised and unheard voices which are not able to make a mark in the parliamentary chambers due to paucity of representation, either due to lack of sufficient numeric strength in the constituencies or the mere lack of apathy from the representative to their voices. However, in such matters of sensitivity, polyvocality of opinions (running into hundreds of pages) might not go well with many, having four opinions in a bench of five judges, does bring some elements of uncertainty, but it surely goes well with the argumentation(al) temperament of the constitution. The credit must go to the Master of Roster, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, for the formulation of such a bench which was open to such vivid and diverse argumentation in the course of a hearing. In the present case, an earnest effort has been made by the court to recognise as many rights as possible within their jurisdictional arena. Special mention needs to be given to Justice Chandrachud for his dissenting opinion, wherein the judge has attempted to give a marriage-like status to the civil union of two individuals. Justice Chandrachud emphasises the functional/operational aspect of Article 19 (1) (c), (e), (a), 21 & 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution. The freedom to settle and the freedom to create a union cannot fully be operationalised till the time there is ‘State & Non-State Violence’ against individuals for their sexual orientation and gender identity. Justice Chandrachud accepts the fact that marriage as an institution, and as recognised and regulated by the state, cannot be made a fundamental right. Neither will it be possible for the Supreme Court under the present legal matrix to recognise the marriage rights of individuals belonging to queer groups. In simple fact, the relevant law under which this right could have been considered was the Special Marriage Act, of 1954. Justice Chandrachud emphasises that the provision of the Act is under-worded and thus indirectly discriminates against the queer group, building his arguments in line with Navtej Singh Johar (2018), Shakti Vahani (2018), Nalsa (2014) and K.S. Puttaswamy-I (2018). Emphasising more on individual liberty, dignity and the choices they make. However, he also agrees, that the Separation of Power being a part of the Indian Constitution, it is for the legislative deliberations to frame laws and policy on the matter. In an elaborative judgment, Justice Chandrachud has laid down an extensive direction for the Governments for safeguarding the civil union between individuals from queer groups, right from sensitisation of the people about LGBTQ rights, to ordering the criteria (such as joint bank account, ration card etc.) that the Committee should take into consideration while deliberating on the rights of the queer group. It can briefly be said that Justice Chandrachud has made an all-out attempt to provide marriage-like status to the civil union of the individuals from the queer group, even adoption rights. The approach of Justice Chandrachud can be summarised as ‘rights from wrong approach’, an approach propounded by Allan Dershowitz. It is a commonly referred approach under Comparative Constitutional Law. It is believed that every right propounded is based on a past injustice. An example could be Germany. The modern German Constitution is pro-fundamental rights and human rights-centric. Germany saw a bad past of the holocaust, and it comes as a lesson for them to create a more stable society in line with human dignity. Throughout his opinion, Justice Chandrachud has emphasised the marginalisation faced by the queer group due to the insensitivity of the state and the non-state actors. Granting them equal status in the form of a civil union (and all the benefits attached to it) was a way to compensate them for the wrongs committed in the past. Also read | Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India However, the majority opinion led by Justice Ravindra Bhat (concurred by Justice Hima Kohli and a separate concurring opinion of Justice PS Narashima) did not endorse the opinion of Justice Chandrachud and was practically correct. Knowing that the Separation of Power is a part of the Basic Structure, it is not prudent, legally or even ethically, for the Court of Law to create an institution parallel to marriage. Justice Bhat categorically emphasises that a right does not always create a positive obligation to the extent that the Court can lay down the law for it. Merely having a right to civil union does not obligate the state to create the socio-legal groundwork for facilitating the right. The Court surely cannot do this work, it is upon the executive deliberation to fixate an appropriate time. However, it is interesting to mention that the majority opinion does concur with the dissenting that the ‘Right to Marriage’ cannot be unqualified. Also read | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists From a jurisprudential aspect, the judgement needs to be analysed from three perspectives: legal, moral and sociological (a reference to this can be found in the book of Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law: Chapter 39). The legal aspect deals with the legality of the judgement, on that front this judgment is completely sound, following the principles of the Indian Constitution to the point. However, on a moral and sociological front this judgement might be passing through grace marks. The moral aspect of the judgment raises questions regarding the ethical responsibility of the Court, as in, why does a Court exist? Prof Rohit De (author of the book A People’s Constitution) says in a democratic country, the Court plays a major role in being a forum of representation for unheard voices. The whole concept of Judicial Review originated from this ethical necessity of an independent arbiter, who will arbitrate the rights of the individual against the State. On this front, the judgment has partially succeeded, as already mentioned earlier, at least the judgment brought the discourse regarding queer group and their rights to the forefront in the public domain, wherein it will be discussed in every household of the country. Though the judgment has not given the desired result, yet a discourse of the unheard will go a long way in creating a route. As Prof. Yogesh Pratap Singh (author of the book Judicial Dissent and Indian Supreme Court) says, possibly a dissenting opinion at present will gain traction in the near future and a jurisprudence for tomorrow. On the sociological aspect, the question is whether the judgement is well-accepted or not, and when we talk about acceptance of judgement, we do not refer to the mass population of India giving their acceptance to the judgement. We refer to the stakeholders of judgement (the mention of such arguments on legal, moral and political legitimacy can be seen in the Book Democracy and Constitutionalism in India), the stakeholders under this judgement will be the queer community and the legal diaspora. There are mixed reviews which have come for the judgement, most of the members of queer groups are disheartened. However, it is interesting to see that this has been portrayed as a failure of the Court to not recognise marital rights, several of the prime legal websites in their snippets have lambasted the judiciary for their failure to uphold the marital rights of queer groups. But that is not the truth, the judiciary has done a remarkable job to the extent it was legally possible. The sociological acceptance of the judgement depends on the public perception created by the media channels, and legal news platforms, it seems they have failed to portray the real picture. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

To marry or not to marry: An analysis of Indian Supreme Court's same-sex marriage judgment

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community.&nbsp;

From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture. In spite of that, the community has long been constitutionally deprived of basic rights like marriage.&nbsp;

On Tuesday, 17th October 2023, the Indian Supreme court announced a verdict on&nbsp;LGBT rights like marriage and adoption. The top court failed to recognise gay marriage and said that the decision lies with India's legislative.&nbsp;

<h2>Supreme Court verdict and the queer community in India</h2>

The verdict has "quashed the hopes of millions," said Queering in Chandigarh (QiC), an LGBT collective based in Indian Union Territory Chandigarh.

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha, had divided views on the various civil petitions before it.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-verdict-live-india-awaits-historical-judgement-647796">Same-sex marriage verdict | India fails to recognise gay marriage</a>

While the bench concurred that queerness as a concept is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elite, it said the court can't make law, but only interpret it.&nbsp;

The justices also said that it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act.&nbsp;

Talking to WION, QiC questioned the bench's insistence over separation of power, and said: "It is said that separation of powers is the best safeguard for human liberty in a liberal democracy, but what happens when that separation of powers argument comes to hinder the growth and development of a section of the populace of the democracy?"

As per the queer collective, "CJI D Y Chandrachud, while having positivity in his views on the matter, shielded himself and his bench’s decision of not recognising same-sex marriage in India, behind separation of power principle."

They said that "despite the various arguments that the CJI came up with to show support and solidarity with the community, he failed to bring about a change in the laws of the land."

<h2>'Hope is not lost'</h2>

"In some form or the other (the judgement), quashed the hopes of millions," said Pranav Puri, a core member of QiC. However, he added that "while today is not the day we get our rights, all hope is not lost."

"By recognising that homosexuality is not an urban and elite concept, the five judge bench went in direct contradiction to the stand of the union government, who have been in stern opposition of the case," he added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/he-said-she-said-outlandish-arguments-groundbreaking-statements-from-indias-same-sex-marriage-hearing-586946">'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial</a>

Simran Chawla, founder of QiC noted that "while everybody in the community hoped that the decision would be positive, there was a hint of negativity that was harboured seeing the environment of our social-polity."

However, Chawla acknowledged the merit of CJI Chandrachud's judgement regarding section 4 of the Special Marriage Act - which deals with polygamy, minimum age of marriage, soundness of mind of the two parties, etc.

"On the aspect of annulment of section 4 of the SMA, I have to stand with the learned CJI, where he said that if we strike down that section, it would send India back to the pre-independence age."

She said, "while we want our rights to be added to the pre-existing jurisprudence of the country, any action that gives me my right, but infringes upon the right of the other (which is already in place) should not be done so."

Hemakshi (he/him), who is part of India's queer community and an active&nbsp;member&nbsp;of QiC emphasised that the journey ahead would be challenging but affirmed the ongoing commitment to the "fight."

"We appreciate the efforts of the queer activists, lawyers and visionaries who have paved the way for us to reach here. We're grateful for them, and we'll continue to join them&nbsp;in&nbsp;this&nbsp;fight," he said.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community. From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture.

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community. From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture. In spite of that, the community has long been constitutionally deprived of basic rights like marriage. On Tuesday, 17th October 2023, the Indian Supreme court announced a verdict on LGBT rights like marriage and adoption. The top court failed to recognise gay marriage and said that the decision lies with India's legislative. Supreme Court verdict and the queer community in India The verdict has "quashed the hopes of millions," said Queering in Chandigarh (QiC), an LGBT collective based in Indian Union Territory Chandigarh. A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha, had divided views on the various civil petitions before it. Also read | Same-sex marriage verdict | India fails to recognise gay marriage While the bench concurred that queerness as a concept is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elite, it said the court can't make law, but only interpret it. The justices also said that it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act. Talking to WION, QiC questioned the bench's insistence over separation of power, and said: "It is said that separation of powers is the best safeguard for human liberty in a liberal democracy, but what happens when that separation of powers argument comes to hinder the growth and development of a section of the populace of the democracy?" As per the queer collective, "CJI D Y Chandrachud, while having positivity in his views on the matter, shielded himself and his bench’s decision of not recognising same-sex marriage in India, behind separation of power principle." They said that "despite the various arguments that the CJI came up with to show support and solidarity with the community, he failed to bring about a change in the laws of the land." 'Hope is not lost' "In some form or the other (the judgement), quashed the hopes of millions," said Pranav Puri, a core member of QiC. However, he added that "while today is not the day we get our rights, all hope is not lost." "By recognising that homosexuality is not an urban and elite concept, the five judge bench went in direct contradiction to the stand of the union government, who have been in stern opposition of the case," he added. Also read | 'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial Simran Chawla, founder of QiC noted that "while everybody in the community hoped that the decision would be positive, there was a hint of negativity that was harboured seeing the environment of our social-polity." However, Chawla acknowledged the merit of CJI Chandrachud's judgement regarding section 4 of the Special Marriage Act - which deals with polygamy, minimum age of marriage, soundness of mind of the two parties, etc. "On the aspect of annulment of section 4 of the SMA, I have to stand with the learned CJI, where he said that if we strike down that section, it would send India back to the pre-independence age." She said, "while we want our rights to be added to the pre-existing jurisprudence of the country, any action that gives me my right, but infringes upon the right of the other (which is already in place) should not be done so." Hemakshi (he/him), who is part of India's queer community and an active member of QiC emphasised that the journey ahead would be challenging but affirmed the ongoing commitment to the "fight." "We appreciate the efforts of the queer activists, lawyers and visionaries who have paved the way for us to reach here. We're grateful for them, and we'll continue to join them in this fight," he said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Exclusive | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists