Imlisanen Jamir
On a brisk autumn morning of October 17, a sense of anticipation hung in the air as India's LGBTQ+ community and its allies awaited a pivotal verdict that held the promise of affirming their long-denied rights. In a country marked by its rich tapestry of culture and tradition, the verdict held the potential to rewrite a chapter in India's legal history. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul, delivering their judgments, momentarily lit a beacon of hope.
For the LGBTQ+ community, this day was monumental. The nation held its breath as the justices announced their decisions, and there was a collective sigh of relief as the verdict granted adoption rights to same-sex couples. This was a significant milestone, underscoring the evolving understanding of the LGBTQ+ community's inherent right to love and care for children, shattering stereotypes that had persisted for far too long.
Furthermore, the judges, in a progressive move, acknowledged civil unions as a crucial step toward full marriage equality. This recognition brought India in alignment with many nations around the world that have acknowledged the importance of civil unions as a stepping stone to comprehensive marriage rights for all. It was a moment that demonstrated that India was ready to take a leap forward and embrace a more inclusive and equitable society.
But, as the day wore on, the winds of change proved fickle, and the majority judgment from the Supreme Court took a different turn. It refrained from legalizing queer marriage, choosing instead to maintain the status quo. In a surprising twist, the court opted to pass the responsibility to the government, urging them to address the pervasive discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ couples in their daily lives.
The Union government promptly pledged to establish a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to examine these issues. However, this commitment, while encouraging, leaves much to be desired. Without a clear charter or specific guidelines to guide its deliberations, the committee's outcomes may be subject to the whims of political expediency. The minority judgment had thoughtfully outlined critical areas of concern, including healthcare, prison visitation, financial rights, succession, maintenance, and pensions. Regrettably, the majority judgment remained silent on these pressing matters.
As the dust settles on this momentous day, it is undeniable that the LGBTQ+ community and its advocates have reasons to be disheartened. The promise of marriage equality still remains on the horizon, and the road to full recognition is far from complete. The struggle for LGBTQ+ rights continues, and the battle for justice and equality is far from over.
While the verdict brought some important victories for LGBTQ+ rights in India, it also revealed the challenges that persist in the pursuit of full equality and acceptance. As the government committee embarks on its mission to address these issues, it must do so with utmost diligence and dedication, guided by the principles of equality and justice. The LGBTQ+ community deserves nothing less, and their rights, like the winds of change, should not waver.
Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com
