When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Glass Half-Empty For India's LGBTQ+ After Landmark Ruling

Although it emphasized the rights of India's LGBTQ+ to live free of discrimination, India’s top court declined to legally recognize same-sex marriage, leaving the decision to Parliament. What does verdict mean in real terms for the people affected.

Photograph of five LGBTQ community members posing next to a rainbow mural outside Humsafar Trust.​

October 17, 2023, Mumbai: LGBTQ community members pose for a photo near a mural outside Humsafar Trust.

Ashish Vaishnav/ZUMA
Toufiq Rashid

NEW DELHI — For a majority of people in our cultures, a marriage has a husband and a wife. According to many people, the absence of one entity out of these two does not make it a marriage.

That is exactly what the Supreme Court bench seems to have based its verdict on.

From what I understood, the apex court, with a 3:2 majority, is against the marriage or even legal union of people having the same gender. This in spite of the Chief Justice of India’s comment saying same sex union is “natural and old.” And there is nothing “urban and elite” about it.

According to the country’s top court, spouses have to be a man and a woman – whether they are cisgender (affirm the gender they are born with) or trans gender (not affirming to the gender they have been assigned at birth. However, being in a same sex relationship is neither forbidden nor illegal according to this judgement. So same-sex partners can cohabit, but will not have the same rights as a spouse.

They cannot adopt together as a couple and have no rights when it comes to property, inheritance or even insurance. The judges also refused to annul or tweak the provisions of the Special Marriage Act to include non-heterosexual couples within its fold.

The apex court said that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion of interference. The judges also unanimously gave a go ahead to a high-powered committee proposed by the Union government to examine the concerns of same-sex couples and take corrective measures.

Gender rights activists are trying to find a silver lining in the verdict, as the apex court has tried to further decriminalize living with same-sex partners through it. As one of the judges has said that both heterosexual and homosexual unions have to be looked as "two sides of the same coin".

Again however one feels, the apex court has again stopped short of taking a clear stand by saying only government and parliament can make laws and legalize same-sex marriage.

No formality

Like many times in the past, the verdict seems to be majoritarian in more than one ways. It goes totally in favour of those opposing the marriage and legal sanctions of such a relationship.

While the honorable judges have not opposed same sex unions, at the same time they have provided no alternative to bring it under the purview of the law.

According to courts, there will be nothing formal about these relationships. So to my understanding till the parliament makes some regulations is that there will be no protection, no divorce proceedings, no alimony.

Consider the safety of partners in a relationship which is not protected by law.

The problem is paramount in a country like ours where for a majority of population, social sanction for a relationship comes only after marriage. There is also a minority perception which doesn’t believe in any kind of formal bond for two consenting adults to live together. This hearts’ calling, unfortunately, is not the view of majority in the country.

For our parents’ generation and even many in the current generation – only marriage can mean commitment and stability. Although I believe for a marriage to work, hearts have to be in harmony, that view might not be shared by society in general. If this verdict was otherwise, it would have given partners that place in society which is rightfully theirs and also given reasons for parents to agree to such unions.

Even if we don’t agree with this moralistic view or care for social approval, consider the safety of partners in a relationship which is not protected by law? When marriage is not legal, families can prevail at any time, putting the safety of partners in such a union at risk.

Close-up photograph of a woman's face half covered in rainbow make up, celebrating pride in India.

December 29, 2019, Kolkata, India: Photo of a participant in a pride event.

Sudipta Das/ZUMA

No safety blanket

What about domestic violence? Are we saying that violence and abuse are only prevalent in a marriage between opposite genders?

What about financial security? If a partner in a same-sex union has an untimely death and the living partner is not earning, how is depriving the dependent partner of financial security justified?

Same-sex couples will have no right to each others’ property even if they are together for a lifetime unless they leave a will. A same-sex couple will not be able to start a family legally. Single parent adoption will be difficult for them, one assumes.

So, one wonders what safety blanket the verdict is providing at all. Years ago when I was covering health and HIV/AIDS was a subject that deeply interested me, the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community was jarring. Abuse and rape in the name of law was rampant. The community is more vocal now than it ever was in the country but it is only laws and court verdicts which can provide protection without loopholes.

A citizen of the country is free to do anything, live any life as long as he/she/they are not posing a threat to others but does this verdict give that right to same-sex couples? Will the verdict discourage closet behavior or forced marriages? The verdict puts the onus of living a safe life on the community again.

The honorable courts have to come out of the mode of verdicts aimed for the satisfaction of the majority and take some unpopular decisions for the larger good of some marginalized communities as well. This is, again, one of the strings of judgements where majority opinion wins over logic.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Violence Against Women, The Patriarchy And Responsibility Of The Good Men Too

The femicide of Giulia Cecchettin has shaken Italy, and beyond. Argentine journalist Ignacio Pereyra looks at what lies behind femicides and why all men must take more responsibility.

photo of a young man holding a sign: Filippo isn't a monster, he's the healthy son of the patriarchy

A protester's sign referring to the alleged killer reads: Filippo isn't a monster, he's the healthy son of the patriarchy

Matteo Nardone/Pacific Press via ZUMA Press
Ignacio Pereyra

Updated Dec. 3, 2023 at 10:40 p.m.


ATHENS — Are you going to write about what happened in Italy?, Irene, my partner, asks me. I have no idea what she's talking about. She tells me: a case of femicide has shaken the country and has been causing a stir for two weeks.

As if the fact in itself were not enough, I ask what is different about this murder compared to the other 105 women murdered this year in Italy (or those that happen every day around the world).

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

We are talking about a country where the expression "fai l'uomo" (be a man) abounds, with a society so prone to drama and tragedy and so fond of crime stories as few others, where the expression "crime of passion" is still mistakenly overused.

In this context, the sister of the victim reacted in an unexpected way for a country where femicide is not a crime recognized in the penal code, contrary to what happens, for example, in almost all of Latin America.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest