A MATTER OF LAW OR CONSCIENCE?

Supreme Court’s recent verdict denying legal recognition of queer marriages has sparked debate on the judiciary’s role in social change and human rights. The Court deferred to the legislature for law enactment, refusing to establish a new statutory regime. However, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, in his minority judgment, affirmed queer couples’ right to union recognition, based on the constitutional values of justice and equality.

The verdict raises voices about the judiciary’s balance of constitutional duty and separation of powers, interpretation of equality in a diverse society, and response to marginalised groups seeking intervention. CJI Chandrachud, at a panel discussion in Washington, DC, revealed that decisions can be a vote of conscience and constitution, acknowledging the difficulty of court intervention in the absence of a statute.

CJI’s stance reflects his commitment to substantive equality, considering discrimination histories and realities. He redefines merit as a measure of inclusion, citing cases where he applied this principle. He also acknowledges the complexities of judicial intervention, especially without a clear legislative framework or consensus.