New Delhi: Editorials in India’s major English-language newspapers on Wednesday (October 18) talked about the Supreme Court’s decision the day before not to legalise marriage equality, and instead say that any such granting of rights had to be done by the executive.
Several of the editorials expressed the opinion that the court had missed an opportunity to end existing discrimination, and that the judgment comes as a setback for the queer community’s fight for rights and equality.
Here’s a look at what some of the newspapers had to say.
The Times of India
“Do same-sex couples have same constitutional rights as straight couples? Yes, should have been SC’s answer,” The Times of India headlined its editorial. It pointed out that the petitioners were only asking for a different reading of the Special Marriage Act and hence access to legal rights, they were not “seeking religious validation or social approval as an “Indian family unit””.
“The right to equality and non-discrimination means that LGBT citizens should not be deprived of what heterosexual people take for granted. The right to same-sex civil unions should have flowed naturally from these facts,” the newspaper stated.
The court was not being asked to intervene in the custom of marriage, but only in the contract with rights and obligations, as it is laid down in the Special Marriage Act, The Times of India said. “SC’s core job is to uphold constitutional rights, irrespective of popular endorsement or social custom. It could have affirmed constitutional principles, and then left it to the legislature to do its job. If Parliament differed, and it might well have, given what seems to be the prevailing political opinion, the court would have still done right by constitutional principles. That is all that India’s sexual minorities had wanted from the country’s top court.”
The Hindu
The Hindu called the court’s decision a “huge legal setback” for the queer community in India. “In concluding that there is no fundamental right to marry, the Court has negated the expectation that it would not allow discrimination against same-sex couples in the marital domain to continue,” the newspaper stated.
“Given that large sections of India may be opposed to the legalisation of same-sex marriages on religious and cultural grounds, the possibility of Parliament taking the initiative to do so is quite bleak. The LGBTQIA+ community may now have to take heart from the Court’s direction that the government should form a committee to decide the rights and entitlements of queer couples. The community, however, still has quite a struggle ahead before the law catches up with its yearning for equality,” the editorial concludes.
Hindustan Times
Saying the court’s decision to not take any steps at all in the direction of equality, and instead leave everything to a Union government-appointed committee, “disappointing”, Hindustan Times called Tuesday’s verdict a setback when compared to other decisions like the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships.
“In every country, the journey from decriminalisation of queerness to recognition of marital rights has been long and arduous. So, granting full marriage rights to the community was always an outlier, especially considering the tangled mesh of secular and personal laws that govern marriage, divorce and inheritance in India. But the court’s refusal to accord even limited recognition to queer couples and leave it instead to executive fiat is disappointing,” the newspaper said.
Hindustan Times stated that the struggle for equal rights will continue: “…in the long arc of queer history — which has seen the top court dismiss a community as a “minuscule minority” only to say history owes an apology to them five years later — it is only a stumble, one that hopefully will not hobble the quest to ensure a life of dignity to millions of Indian citizens.”
The Indian Express
While the court did not provide the landmark judgment many may have expected, The Indian Express writes, its recognition of existing discrimination “has opened up valuable room for finding a way forward”.
“The court did not go far enough even as it has prised open some space and widened the room for manoeuvre for an embattled minority. Its categorical no to same sex marriage can also be said to make many of its empathetic observations on rights and discrimination seem like tokenism. In the end, therefore, the verdict points at the larger battles that still remain to be fought – the necessity of safeguards both within the home and outside, the recognition of civil unions as a possibility for the community, and the realisation, above all, that like all battles for equal rights, this, too, has a long and arduous road ahead,” the newspaper editorial stated.
The Tribune
The Tribune has expressed agreement with the court’s view that it is the executive that must make decisions of this kind.
“Though the court has not given same-sex couples the legal nod to marry, the majority verdict has underscored the dire need to protect them from discrimination, harassment and mockery. Union and state governments have a key role to play in sensitising the public about the rights of this vulnerable section of society. And it is up to the legislature to create a legal framework for queer couples. Whether lawmakers are sincere about empowering the LGBTQIA+ community will be known in due course,” the newspaper said.
