'No right for queer couples to jointly adopt’: SC in same-

Card image

'No right for queer couples to jointly adopt’: SC in same-sex marriage verdict

By Team EOS |

The CJI said the law didn't preclude unmarried couples from adopting.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while announcing his verdict on a clutch of petitions demanding legal status to same-sex marriages, today struck down the Central Adoption Resource Authority's (CARA) regulation that restricted queer and unmarried couples from adopting children. The five-judge bench, however, in a 3:2 verdict, ruled that non-heterosexual couples cannot be granted the right to jointly adopt a child.
CJI Chandrachud said it couldn't be assumed only "heterosexual married couples can be good parents".

CARA is a statutory body affiliated to the Ministry of Women and Child Development. It is the nodal body for adoption of Indian children. It regulates and monitors all adoptions taking place in India, including inter-country adoptions.

The CJI said the law didn't preclude unmarried couples from adopting, and that the Union of India hadn't proven restricting unmarried couples from adopting was in the best interest of children. "CARA has exceeded its authority in barring unmarried couples," he said.

"Differentia between married couples and unmarried couples has no reasonable nexus with the objective of CARA - the best interests of the child," CJI Chandrachud said.

He said the CARA circular (which excludes queer couples from adoption) is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution, reported Live Law.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to grant legal recognition to same-sax marriages, holding that it is only for Parliament and state legislatures to create such institutions and grant them legal validation.

The Constitution bench -- comprising CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha -- were unanimous in their judgement that it was beyond the remit of courts to issue a positive direction to the legislature to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages.

The court refused to change the meaning of the Special Marriage Act. However, it declared queer couples have the right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion or interference.

Three of the five judges ruled there can't be a right to form civil unions. By the same majority, the court also held that non-heterosexual couples cannot be granted the right to jointly adopt a child.

 

Latest News Latest Supreme Court

Latest Posts

Card image

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage: What’s Next?

As legal professionals, we recognize the profound implications of the Supreme Court of India's recent deliberations on same-sex marriage. While the Court refrained from granting full marriage equality, the discussions have paved the way for significant legal discourse on LGBTQ+ ...

Card image

#𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐋𝐚𝐰 | 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞?

YES! 🚫 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 — like proven misconduct, criminal activity, or if the employment contract specifically permits termination without notice. 🧾 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭, 1947, and state-specific Shops & Establishment Acts, arbitrary dismissal can invite legal ...

Card image

CJI DY Chandrachud Cautions About Artificial Intelligence; Says It Can Make Biased Decisions Based On Societal Prejudices

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachudrecently spoke on how no technology is neutral and how it can reflect human values when deployed in the real world. The CJI spoke on how one must ponder the human and societal values ...

Card image

Supreme Court Seeks Union's Stand Regarding Cryptocurrency

The Centre has told the Supreme Court it is yet to take a decision on a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrencies and effectively investigate related offences. A bench of justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was told by Additional Solicitor General ...

Card image

Members Of Railway Protection Force Can Seek Benefit Under Employees Compensation Act Though RPF Declared As An Armed Force: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (26.09.2023), held that an officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can seek compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 even though the RPF has been declared to be an armed force of the Union. “..in ...

Card image

Stop Misleading Advertisements, Will Impose Rs 1 Crore Cost On Every Product Claiming False Cure: Supreme Court To Patanjali Ayurved

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 21) reprimanded the Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading claims and advertisements against modern systems of medicine. While considering a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against misleading advertisements, the bench comprising ...

EOS Chambers of Law

Speak With Our
Experts Today!

Get a Appointment
EOS Chambers of Law