Mixed response in Bengaluru as SC rules against legalising same-sex marriage

The LGBTQIA+ community in Bengaluru had a mixed response to the Supreme Court verdict on Tuesday that refused legal sanctity to same-sex marriages in the country. The five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud instead placed the onus on Parliament to formulate the required legislation.

The top court’s verdict evoked a mixed response from the LGBTQIA+ community in Bengaluru, whose many members had gathered at the Alternative Law Forum (ALF) to track the judgement live.

Akkai Padmashali, an activist and one of the petitioners, called it the foundation to their next level of activism. “Our struggle is to obtain the rights we deserve,” Padmashali told the DH.

“We shall see this verdict as a stepping stone and take our movement forward.”

The activist stressed that the verdict of suggesting the Parliament to form a commission was a critical decision. “Parliament lacks representation from sexual minorities which has kept the legislature far from understanding their problems,” Padmashali said. Those gathered at ALF collectively hailed the CJI’s statement “queerness is neither urban nor elite”.

Magizhvan Singh (name changed), an LGBTQIA+ activist, felt differing views with the community. “A part of the community feels the need for same sex marriage, while the other feels that fighting for same-sex marriage reiterates the importance of heterosexual family life,” he said. “We are kind of divided among ourselves whether we need this fight for marriage or not.”

Singh opined that as an activist, he noticed a lack of unity seen during the “long movements against Section 377”. “I felt that the whole responsibility was kept on the court itself – it is problematic when you expect the court itself to be a saviour and don’t build a strong case and do enough research.”

“I wish if the court would’ve said: Okay, we are in 2023, the whole world is embracing same-sex marriage and maybe we need to set the precedent and also do the same. What I do like about the judgement is that it reiterated the fact that transgender marriages are legal.”

Anirudh, co-founder of Queer Awaam, said the judgement doesn’t change the legal landscape beyond what National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Navtej verdict did, but the reiteration of those aspects by the court offers a strong basis to move the government.

“We were not expecting marriage equality anyways but it is also not as dissenting as one might have assumed. It is significant in many ways,” Anirudh said.

Major highlight of the verdict is that the bench swiftly shut down the homophobic, hurtful and discriminatory ideas in rendering this verdict, Anirudh emphasised. “They didn’t entertain ideas like queer parents being worse parents than heterosexual ones and called the claims baseless.”

Cut-off box - ‘We want an inclusive city’ Speaking to the DH prior to the verdict Bengaluru police commissioner B Dayananda said: “Every citizen will be treated the same way. We want an inclusive city.”