Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s remarks after the SC’s ruling on same-sex marriage

Attorney General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the Centre, stated on Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages strikes a compromise between the rights of individuals and the values of a civilised society.

Today, the five-judge constitution bench denied same-sex marriages legal recognition, stating that Parliament should have the authority to amend the law to validate such unions.
“It is an important step in jurisprudential development on the question of separation of powers and provides vivid and eloquent insights into the working of the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary which functions complement each other strictly as per the Constitution,” said Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General.

Also read: Supreme Court Defers Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage To Parliament

However, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination against LGBT individuals is unacceptable. The court stated that same-sex couples cannot assert marriage as a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution since there is “no unqualified right” to it.

The judges disagreed with the Center’s argument that the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage’s legalisation were an expression of an urban elitist viewpoint. In giving his decision, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that queerness is not an elite nor an urban concept or trait.
The court ruled that it could only interpret laws—not create new ones. It stated that Parliament should amend the Special Marriage Act.

Also read: Supreme Court Defers Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage To Parliament

Additionally, the court rejected the possibility of joint adoption of children.
Mehta expressed her gratitude for the ruling by saying, “I sincerely welcome the judgment. That my stance has been acknowledged makes me glad. The four rulings have advanced both our country’s jurisprudence and the level of thought that went into crafting the rulings. This degree of sophisticated and erudite judicial process is unheard of in most courts across the globe. This ruling would be interpreted in all relevant jurisdictions.