End Discrimination Against Queer Couples, Address Exclusion Of Same-Sex Partners From Benefits: Supreme Court To State

Even though the Supreme Court refrained from granting legal recognition for same-sex marriages, it did make a strong call to the State to take steps to end the discrimination faced by queer couples and to ensure protection for their right to cohabitation.The Court clearly observed that the discrimination faced by the queer community due to the exclusion of same-sex partners from welfare measures due to the heteronormative definitions in laws must be addressed by the State.The five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha refused to bring queer marriages within the fold of the Special Marriage Act 1954. To read the provisions of the Act in such a manner would amount to a legislative exercise, the Court held.Although the bench was not unanimous on whether there is a right to civil union in the absence of a statutory enactment - with CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Kaul answering the issue in the affirmative and the other three judges holding otherwise- the judges were on the same page in recognising the right of queer persons to choose their partner and cohabit.CJI DY Chandrachud, in his judgment, issued a slew of directions to the police and the governments to ensure that the queer community is not discriminated against because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.Justice Bhat, even while disagreeing with the CJI on certain aspects, also acknowledged the discrimination faced by queer couples. The right to cohabit and live in a relationship in the privacy of one’s home is fundamental, and enjoyed by all, Justice Bhat stated.State recognizing only homosexual relationships adversely impacts queer couplesJustice Bhat further stated in the judgment that the State recognising only homosexual relationships as marriage impacts queer couples adversely. Elaborating this point,he said :"The intention of the state, in framing the regulations or laws, is to confer on benefits to families, or individuals, who are married. This has the result of adversely impacting to exclude queer couples. By recognizing heterosexual couples’ unions and cohabitation as marriages in various laws and regulations such as: in employment (nominations in pension, provident fund, gratuity, life and personal accident insurance policies); for credit (particularly joint loans to both spouses, based on their total earning capacity); for purposes of receiving compensation in the event of fatal accidents, to name some such instances, and not providing for non-heterosexual couples such recognition, results in their exclusion," (Para 113)The restrictive way in which ‘dependent’ or ‘nominee(s)’ are defined (‘spouse’, or members of the family in a heteronormative manner) in schemes such as Provident Fund, Family Pension, Employees State Insurance etc., exclude their enjoyment to the intended beneficiary. "This deprivation has to be addressed," said Justice Bhat adding, "This injustice and inequity results in discrimination, unless remedial action is taken by the state and central governments."State must mitigate discriminatory impact on queer communityJustice Bhat however said that it is beyond the remit of the judiciary to decide in what manner the rights of the queer couples should be determined. Observing that the issue was "polycentric" and involved several policy considerations, he said that the matter must be left to the legislature and the executive.However, he categorically stated, "The State has to take suitable remedial action to mitigate the discriminatory impact experienced by the members of the queer community, in whatever form it deems fit after undertaking due and necessary consultation from all parties, especially all state governments and union territories, since their regulations and schemes too would have to be similarly examined and addressed."(Para 148)He added :"The resultant adverse impact suffered by the petitioners in relation to earned benefits, solely because of the State’s choice to not recognise their (social) union or relationship, is one which results in their discrimination. This discriminatory impact – cannot be ignored, by the State; the State has a legitimate interest necessitating action. The form of action – whether it will be by enacting a new umbrella legislation, amendments to existing statutes, rules, and regulations that as of now, disentitle a same-sex partner from benefits accruing to a ‘spouse’ (or ‘family’ as defined in the heteronormative sense), etc.– are policy decisions left to the realm of the legislature and executive. However, the recognition that their non-inclusion in a legal framework which entitles them, and is a prerequisite eligibility criteria for myriad earned and accrued benefits, privileges, and opportunities has harsh and unjust discriminatory consequences, amounting to discrimination violating their fundamental right under Article 15 –is this court’s obligation,...

End Discrimination Against Queer Couples, Address Exclusion Of Same-Sex Partners From Benefits: Supreme Court To State

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

End Discrimination Against Queer Couples, Address Exclusion Of Same-Sex Partners From Benefits: Supreme Court To State

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers