In 3:2 Majority Verdict, SC Rules Same-Sex Couples Can't Adopt A Child. Read Who Said What

Same-Sex Marriage: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled with a majority verdict of 3:2 that homosexual couples cannot adopt a child.

Same-Sex Marriage Verdict: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that same-sex couples cannot adopt a child and also refused to legalise their marriage putting the responsibility on the same to parliament. The five-judge Constitution bench with a majority verdict of 3:2 said upheld the constitutional validity of provisions of Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) Regulations. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul agreed to the adoption rights of the queers people while Justices S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha dissented.

Here's Who Said What

CJI DY Chandracud: The CJI emphasised that the right to enter into a union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation and ruled that unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child. He said the law cannot assume that only heterosexual couples can be good parents, adding that doing this would amount to discrimination.

The Chief Justice further said that CARA guidelines for adoption, under the Juvenile Justice Act, do not preclude unmarried couples from adopting and the Union of India has also not proved that doing so is in the best interest of the child.

"So CARA has exceeded its authority in barring unmarried couples," the CJI noted. 

Stating that differentiating between married couples and unmarried couples has no "reasonable nexus" with the objective of CARA, which is ensuring the best interests of the child, the Chief Justice said, "It cannot be assumed that unmarried couples are not serious about their relationship. There is no material on record to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child."

Justice Chandrachud also noted that regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations as framed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution for discriminating against the queer community. Notably, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: The other judge who was part of the minority verdict is Justice Kaul who agreed with the need to allow same-sex couples to marry as not doing so through Special Marriage Act (SMA) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Majority Verdict: Delivering the majority judgment, Justice Ravindra Bhat said that it was being asked to enable civil marriage in same-sex relationships, and the same cannot exist in the "absence of a statute".

He, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha also disagreed with the observation on the adoption of children by queers that was made by the CJI.

"We disagree with the CJI on the right of queer couples to adopt and we voice certain concerns. This is not to say that unmarried or non-heterosexual couples can't be good parents.. ..given the objective of section 57, the State as parents patriae has to explore all areas and to ensure all benefits reach the children at large in need of stable homes," Justice Bhat said.

He said that CARA regulations are not void for not allowing queer couples to adopt, to which, Justices Kohli and Narasimha agreed.

On certain issues faced by the queer couples like PF, insurance and others, the apex court has asked the Centre to form a committee to address the same.