Same-sex marriage: SC asks Centre to set up high-powered committee chaired by CS to consider benefits for queer persons
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to set up a high-powered committee chaired by the union cabinet secretary to undertake a “comprehensive examination” of all relevant factors pertaining to same-sex couples and consider benefits that could be extended to them.
The direction by the apex court assumes significance as during the hearing on the pleas seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage on May 3 the Centre had said it will constitute a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to examine administrative steps that could be taken for addressing “genuine humane concerns” of same-sex couples without going into the issue of legalising their marriage.
Also Read
The top court Tuesday refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage except those that are recognised by the statute.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
“Consistent with the statement made before this court during the course of proceedings on May 3, 2023, the Union shall set up a high-powered committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Secretary, to undertake a comprehensive examination of all relevant factors, especially including those outlined above,” said Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who penned a separate 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Hima Kohli.
He said, “In the conduct of such exercise, the concerned representatives of all stakeholders, and views of all States and Union Territories shall be taken into account”.
Justice P S Narasimha said in his separate verdict that he was in complete agreement with the reasoning given and conclusions arrived at by Justice Bhat.
In his 247-page judgement, the CJI also recorded the assurance by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Union government will constitute a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary for the purpose of defining and elucidating the scope of the entitlements of queer couples who are in a union.
“The committee shall include experts with domain knowledge and experience in dealing with the social, psychological, and emotional needs of persons belonging to the queer community as well as members of the queer community,” he said.
Justice Chandrachud said the committee shall, before finalising its decisions, conduct wide stakeholder consultation amongst people belonging to the queer community including those hailing from marginalised groups and with the governments of the states and Union Territories.
“The committee shall in terms of the exposition in this judgment consider the following: i. Enabling partners in a queer relationship (i) to be treated as a part of the same family for the purposes of a ration card; and (ii) to have the facility of a joint bank account with the option to name the partner as a nominee, in case of death,” he said.
He said the committee shall consider that in terms of an earlier verdict of the apex court, medical practitioners have a duty to consult family or next of kin or next friend, in the event patients who are terminally ill have not executed an advance directive. “Parties in a union may be considered ‘family’ for this purpose,” the CJI said.
He said the committee shall consider the aspects of jail visitation rights and the right to access the body of the deceased partner and arrange the last rites and also the legal consequences such as succession rights, maintenance, financial benefits such as under the Income Tax Act, 1961, rights flowing from employment such as gratuity and family pension and insurance.
“The report of the committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary shall be implemented at the administrative level by the Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories,” Justice Chandrachud said.
