Following the Supreme Court verdict in which it refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, the petitioners in the case have expressed their strong dissatisfaction.
Kajal and Bhawna, amongst 21 petitioners in the case, have been together since 17th October 2019. According to them, they have been in hiding since then as Bhawna’s parents are against their relationship. Consequently, they have been changing shelter homes, cities, and jobs to ensure safety.
After the SC verdict, Kajal said, “We had planned a lot of things. We had decided we would get married immediately after the verdict and come out and tell our parents that they couldn’t separate us anymore. The legal sanction of our union would have changed our lives, but now we have to go back in hiding.”
Another couple impacted by the verdict, Pooja Srivastava and Nibedita Dutta met on Facebook almost five years ago. They claim that they tied the marital knot but have to write ‘single’ on government documents which don’t provide for same-sex couples.
They live together and own an apparel business but they can’t nominate each other in health and life insurance policies. However, they hoped that legal recognition of same-sex marriages, that is, getting the right to be considered equal partners would have given them a host of rights that are available as a result of legal marriages.
Dejected by the judgement, Srivastava lamented, “If SC has no power, why did they entertain these hearings for six months? They’ve not taken a single step forward.”
She argued that instead of giving such a verdict, the court shouldn’t have entertained the case as people against same-sex marriages are happier. Srivastava continued, “There has been no change [in our legal status] since Nibedita and I got married. Why is it a third party’s concern what my relation to my spouse is, or what inheritance I get from my family? They shouldn’t have entertained the case, because today, the people [against our marriage] are just happier. I am feeling less human.”
Their sentiments were echoed by a Vadodara-based LGBTQIA+ activist Maya Sharma who was also a petitioner in the case. She lives with her partner in Vadodara. She claimed that the verdict was just a repetition of previous judgements and it was nothing more than sound and fury with no substance.
Sharma said, “It’s full of sound and fury signifying nothing. What the judges said has already been stated in the NALSA verdict and the 2018 verdict, there is nothing new in it. The ball is back in the court of the central government and we all know what they feel about it.”
She added that she has been involved in activism for the past few decades and doesn’t believe in the institution of marriage. However, she believed that a favourable verdict would have been a strong step towards equality.
Maya Sharma asked, “One of the judges said that this will adversely affect women. Are we not women? Don’t rights of lesbian women count?”
Udit Sood practices law in the US and he boarded a 20-hour long flight from Los Angeles to hear the SC judgement. However, he added that he wasn’t prepared for the disappointment. He claimed that he wanted to highlight how queer citizens are compelled to leave the country because they are denied equal rights.
Fellow petitioner, Saattvic, an economist who settled in Canada, feels his decision to leave the country in 2020 stands vindicated now. He stated that it’s heartbreaking that his own country doesn’t take him as he is.
Sood said, “I was optimistic. But this is devastating. In earlier judgments involving heterosexual couples, the Supreme Court said marriage is a fundamental right, one that is “integral” to the right to life. Now, with queer couples before it, the Court opted to reverse itself and effectively said ‘never mind, there’s no such right at all’.”
However, a Kolkata-based lesbian activist Malabika, who has been in the field of queer activism for over three decades, chose to emphasise the positive aspects discussed during the hearing.
Malabika said, “As a petitioner, I am disappointed. But I want to focus on the fact that there were a lot of things that were highlighted in the verdict that had not been talked about before. The CJI, for the first time, spoke about the violence of natal family and said that there is not only one kind of family. He recognised that there is migration due to discrimination and persecution in the queer community. I feel this gives us a platform to regroup and strategise our next course of action.”
Just like Malabika, Filmmaker Aditi Anand didn’t lose hope. She met her partner Susan Dias at a queer book club more than a decade ago. They then shifted cities, adopted a child, and raised a dog together.
After hearing the verdict, Anand expressed her disappointment but she still was hopeful. She summed up by saying, “If we haven’t won today, it doesn’t mean we have lost, only that some battle is still to be fought.”