NEW DELHI: In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday struck down the Central Adoption Resource Authority’s (CARA) regulation, which restricted queer and unmarried couples from adopting children, describing them as “unconstitutional.” A five-member Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, emphasized that assuming only “heterosexual married couples can be good parents” is unfounded and discriminatory. The ruling challenges preconceived notions about parenthood and sets a precedent for inclusivity in adoption practices.

SC Strikes Down CARA Regulations

CARA, a statutory body affiliated with the Ministry of Women and Child Development, governs the adoption process in India. The Chief Justice stated that the law does not explicitly prevent unmarried couples from adopting and criticized CARA for overstepping its authority by excluding them without evidence supporting this restriction’s necessity for the child’s best interests. He emphasized that the differentiation between married and unmarried couples lacks a reasonable link to CARA’s objective – the welfare of the child.

Central Rules Violate Constitutional Provisions: SC 

The Chief Justice noted that CARA’s circular, excluding queer couples from adoption, violates Article 15 of the Constitution. The court urged the government at the Centre, states, and Union Territories to combat discrimination against the queer community. The directive included sensitizing the public about queer rights, establishing hotlines and safe houses for queer couples, and ensuring that intersex children are not forced into unnecessary medical procedures.

Legal Protections For Queer Community

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to prevent harassment of the queer community by the police and deter unwarranted summoning of individuals based on their sexual identity. Additionally, the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, also ordered that inter-sex children are not forced to undergo operations. “No person shall be forced to undergo any hormonal therapy,” the chief justice-led bench said while dictating the order.

The bench also underscored the importance of preliminary enquiries before registering any case against a queer couple related to their relationship. These measures aim to protect the rights and dignity of the queer community.

No Legal Recognition To Same-Sex Marriage: SC

The top court acknowledged the rights of transsexual persons in homosexual relationships to marry, however, it also highlighted that legalizing civil union for queer individuals can only be achieved through legislative action, emphasizing that these findings do not infringe upon the right of queer individuals to enter into relationships.

The much-anticipated judgment was delivered in response to pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages. During extensive hearings, petitioners, represented by senior advocates, passionately advocated for the equality rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and urged the court to recognize unions that would allow LGBTQIA+ individuals to lead dignified lives akin to their heterosexual counterparts.

The five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, reserved its verdict after a 10-day marathon hearing that concluded on May 11.

One of the key issues raised by the petitioners pertained to the absence of a legal framework enabling members of the LGBTQIA+ community to marry a person of their choice. The court clarified its intent to address this matter under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, refraining from delving into personal laws.

A petition underscored the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to marry their chosen partners, seeking protection from legislative and popular prejudices. The plea urged the court to enable and uphold their fundamental right to marry and requested appropriate directions to facilitate this.

The central government opposed the plea, asserting that Parliament should deliberate on the matter. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) emphasized the primacy of the welfare of the child in the existing legal framework, highlighting that adoption should not be viewed as a substitute for biological birth within heterosexual couples.

Earlier, on April 18, the central government sought opinions from states regarding same-sex marriage issues. States such as Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan opposed the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the country.

This ruling represents a significant step forward in recognizing and protecting the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, particularly regarding adoption, but leaves the broader issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriages subject to legislative action.