Gohar Mohammed Vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Others
2022-12-15 Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.k. Maheshwari, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.v. Viswanathan
Certain directions for M.V.Amendment Act and Rules.
View full judgment
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union Of India
2023-10-17 Chief Justice (dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay K. Kaul, Justice Shripathi R. Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Pamidighantam S. Narasimha
The Constitution Bench (five judges) wrote four opinions. All five Judges found that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. All five Judges further held that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 allows marriage only between a male and a female and cannot be interpreted to cover non-hetrosexual...
View More
The Constitution Bench (five judges) wrote four opinions. All five Judges found that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. All five Judges further held that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 allows marriage only between a male and a female and cannot be interpreted to cover non-hetrosexual marriages as this would amount to an extensive re-writing of the law beyond the role of the Court. However, the Court did not strike down the SMA as unconstitutional.A majority of three judges (Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice Bhat, and Justice Kohli) expressly stated that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships as well as Intersex persons who identify as either male or female have the right to marry under existing law.By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court held that non-heterosexual couples do not have the right to enter into a civil union unless the legislature changes the laws. This 3:2 majority further held that unmarried couples (including queer/non-heterosexual couples) do not have the right to jointly adopt a child under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”). The opinions of Justice Bhat (joined by Justice Kohli) and Justice Narasimha formed the majority opinion of the Court on these issues.The minority found that non-hetrosexual couples have a right to enter into a civil union. The minority found that a failure to recognise civil unions would violate Article 15 of the Constitution. The minority further interpreted Section 57 of the JJ Act to allow unmarried couples to adopt and consequently struck down Regulation 5(3) of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (“CARA”) Adoption Regulation, which limits adoption only to single individuals and married couples who are in a stable marital relationship. The opinions of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul constituted the minority opinion of the Court.The Supreme Court acknowledged that members of the LGBTQIA+ community faced a variety of legal disadvantages and directed the Union Government to constitute a committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Secretary to set out the rights and benefits queer couples in civil unions would be entitled to. View Less
View full judgment
