CJI Chandrachud was presenting at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law Discussion on the theme “Perspectives from India and the United States.”
CJI Chandrachud was presenting at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law Discussion on the theme ‘Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States’ in Washington DC.
“In general, chief justices have not been in the minority. There have been 13 notable instances in our history in which chief justices were in the minority. “I believe that sometimes it is a vote of conscience, and I stand by what I said,” he was reported by The Indian Express as adding.
When asked what motivated him to make his decision, he stated that a judge’s decision should be based on constitutional morality rather than social majority.
In terms of civil unions, CJI Chandrachud stated that numerous core constitutional concepts, including the rights to association, life and liberty, free speech and expression, backed same-sex partnerships.
He stated that three of his Supreme Court colleagues accepted this right but declined to raise it to the status of a fundamental right.
The majority of the five-judge bench reversed CJI Chandrachud’s decision to enable non-heterosexual couples to adopt.
On Sunday, he remarked that if a single man and woman may adopt in India, why should gay couples be denied the opportunity due to their relationship status?
Explaining why the Supreme Court could not legalize same-sex marriage, he stated that the highest court could not enter a very complex domain that included concerns such as adoption, inheritance, succession, and taxation. “As a result, we said it is for Parliament to act,” the CJI explained.
“By the unanimous decision of all the five judges on the bench, we reached the conclusion that while we have advanced a great deal in terms of decriminalizing homosexuality and acknowledging people belonging to the queer community as equal individuals in our society, legislating on the right to marry is something that falls underneath the domain of Parliament,” said the Chief Justice of India.
Last Monday, the Supreme Court refused to provide legal recognition to same-sex weddings, stating that such institutions should be created and legalized by Parliament and state legislatures. The five-judge bench unanimously agreed to appoint a high-powered committee, as recommended by the Centre in May, to investigate the concerns of same-sex couples and consider potential remedial measures.