In a twist that would even make a Bollywood movie scriptwriter scratch their head, the Supreme Court has decided that when it comes to same-sex marriages, it's not their cup of tea. Or, in other words, they have basically told the Parliament, "Your move."

On a serious note, Tuesday saw the Supreme Court declining the plea to recognize the rights of same-sex couples to tie the knot or even enter into civil unions [Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and anr v. Union of India]. The Court, with a certain ‘pass-the-parcel’ vibe, stated that the current law does not nod in approval to same-sex marriages or civil unions. It's the Parliament's playground now to frame laws that might allow such unions.

But wait, there's more. The Court also played the 'not-it' game on the topic of same-sex couples adopting children. For those keeping score at home, the law doesn't currently allow for that either.

The judgment rolled out from the pens of a Constitution Bench, including some heavy hitters like Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha. If you thought this was a unanimous decision, think again! The Bench split their opinions into four separate judgments.

The majority of the Bench, Justices Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha, sang the same tune, with Justice Narasimha belting out a solo with his own concurring opinion. Meanwhile, CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul, probably inspired by classic Bollywood drama, voiced their dissenting opinions. So, while we wait for the Parliament to make its next move, one thing's for sure: the plot has indeed thickened.

While all the judges formed a harmonious chorus on the point that there's no outright, fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married, things got a tad more intricate when diving into the nuances.

The majority of the bench, featuring the trio of Justices Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha, sang a straightforward tune: the law doesn't currently recognize civil unions between same-sex couples. And if you're wondering about adopting kids? Well, according to this trio, the law is currently giving that a big thumbs down too.

But every story has its rebels. Enter CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul, the dynamic duo with their own take on things. These two, in their minority opinions, felt that same-sex couples should have their relationships recognized as civil unions and, wait for it, also enjoy the perks that come with it. They took it a step further, championing the idea that these couples have every right to adopt children. To put the cherry on top, they gave the existing adoption regulations a bit of a makeover, striking down parts that acted as barriers for same-sex couples.

So, while the majority held its ground, the minority made sure their progressive voice echoed loud and clear in the courtroom. The debate on same-sex rights just got a whole lot more interesting!

Navigating the complex terrain of same-sex rights, the Supreme Court's judgment was a mixed bag of opinions and decisions. Let's break it down point by point for a clearer picture:

Justice Bhat's Majority Opinion:

• There is no unqualified right to marriage. (So, it's not an open buffet, folks!)

• Entitlement to civil unions can be only through enacted laws and courts cannot enjoin such creation of a regulatory framework. (Translation: Courts aren’t the chefs here, Parliament is.)

• Queer persons are not prohibited in celebrating their love for each other, but have no right to claim recognition of such union. (You can party, but no certificates, please!)

• Queer persons have the right to choose their own partner and they must be protected to enjoy such rights. (Love? Yes. Paperwork? Well...)

• Same-sex couples do not have the right to adopt children under existing law. (Sorry, kids are not on the menu.)

• Central government shall set up a high-powered committee to undertake study of all relevant factors associated with same-sex marriage. (Homework time for the government!)

• Transgender persons have the right to marry. (Now, that’s progressive!)

The Court's Minority Opinion:

• Queer couples have a right to enter into civil unions, though they do not have the right to marry under the existing laws. (Almost there, but not quite.)

CJI Chandrachud's Minority Judgment Highlights:

• Queerness is not urban or elite. (Because love knows no zip codes.)

• There is no universal concept of marriage. Marriage has attained the status of a legal institution due to regulations. (Marriage: Not just an age-old tradition but a paperwork-filled one.)

• The Constitution does not grant a fundamental right to marry and the institution cannot be elevated to the status of a fundamental right. (Sorry, no VIP pass to marriage.)

• Court cannot strike down provisions of the Special Marriage Act. It is for Parliament to decide the legal validity of same-sex marriage. Courts must steer clear of policy matters. (Courts: “We’re not the DJs; Parliament, play your tune!”)

• Freedom of queer community to enter into unions is guaranteed under the Constitution. Denial of their rights is a denial of fundamental rights. Right to enter into unions cannot be based on sexual orientation. (Equal love for all!)

• Transgender persons have the right to marry under existing law. (Round of applause!)

• Queer couples have the right to jointly adopt a child. Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations as framed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution for discriminating against the queer community. (Adoption rules, time for a makeover!)

• Centre, states, union territories shall not bar queer people from entering into unions to avail benefits of the state. (Open the gates, let love in!)

The Verdict's Journey and Key Observations

The highest court of the land, after a gripping ten-day hearing, had all eyes on it as it reserved its judgement on May 11th this year. The pivotal question at hand? Whether India was ready to legally recognize same-sex marriages.

Now, courtrooms can be quite the theatre, and this one had its share of poignant moments and revelations:

• The Court, reflecting on international judgements, interestingly pointed out that the US Supreme Court's stance that there was no Constitutional right to abortion wouldn't quite sit well in the Indian context. Here, an individual's adoption rights remain untouched by their marital status.

• The judges underlined that while recognizing same-sex unions was the prerogative of the Legislature, the government might want to roll out the red carpet and ensure these couples get their rightful social benefits and legal rights. Marriage label or not.

• In a candid remark, the Court stated it couldn't be swayed by the youthful sentiments echoing in the country. (So, no, trending hashtags don't dictate judgements!)

• Emphasizing the sanctity of the institution, the Court voiced that marriages deserve the shield of constitutional protection, not just statutory ones.

The petition that set the stage for this legal drama? It came from the heart and home of Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, two gay men from Hyderabad, who were hoping to hear the wedding bells chime legally. (Well, the journey continues.)

Love in the Time of COVID and Legal Ambiguities

In a world where love stories often start with a swipe right, Supriyo and Abhay's decade-long love saga stands as a testament to commitment. The duo, who weathered the storm of the pandemic's second wave and came out of COVID-19's grip together, decided to commemorate the ninth year of their bond with a combined wedding and commitment ceremony. (Talk about turning adversity into an opportunity!)

But here's the catch: while they might have exchanged vows, they don't get to unwrap the legal perks that come with the title of 'husband and husband'. Their plea was loud and clear about this glaring discrepancy.

The lawyers, with the 2017 Puttaswamy case as their ace, argued that the Supreme Court had already acknowledged that the LGBTQIA+ community was entitled to the same rights of equality, dignity, and privacy as everyone else under the Constitution. (Sounds simple enough, doesn't it?)

However, the Central government wasn't quite on the same page. They argued that two same-sex individuals living together and sharing an intimate relationship didn't quite fit into the traditional Indian family mold, which typically paints a picture of a man, a woman, and children born from their union.

Moreover, the government emphasized that there's no "fundamental right" sticker they can slap onto any form of social relationship. So, while Supriyo and Abhay might be setting couple goals, the legal rulebook hasn't quite caught up. (Sometimes, love really is a battlefield.)

Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage: "Not Our Call, Over to Parliament!"

In what can only be described as a plot twist in India's legal tale of same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court, on a crisp Tuesday morning of October 17, finally spilled the beans on where it stands. The esteemed bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, played the 'not-it' card, stating they won't be the ones legalizing same-sex marriages.

With a 3-2 score, it seemed more like the end of a gripping cricket match than a court verdict. The majority verdict was clear: No constitutional right to blow the wedding trumpets for same-sex unions. The ball was then gracefully tossed to the Parliament and State legislatures' court, suggesting they should perhaps draft the chapter on same-sex marriage rights.

Here's another curveball - the court wasn't in the mood to poke holes in the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act either, despite their silence on queer unions. It was, however, kind enough to take note of the Union's promise to mull over the rights and perks that could be granted to queer couples. (A committee in the making, perhaps?)

Chief Justice Chandrachud, with a tone that almost echoed, "We've done our part," emphasized that such policy matters, especially those tied up in the legislative realm's intricacies, weren't the court's cup of tea. So, until Parliament picks up its pen, same-sex couples might have to hold off on sending out those wedding invites. ("Always a bridesmaid, never a bride" vibes, anyone?)

The Supreme Court's Verdict: A Balancing Act Between Law and LGBTQIA+ Rights

As the sun shone over the Supreme Court building, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud began delivering the anticipated verdict on same-sex marriages. He started with a basic civics lesson - the court interprets the law; it doesn't craft it. "Legislation? That's Parliament's jam," he seemed to suggest, emphasizing that the court couldn't simply pen down changes to the Special Marriage Act, even if it remained mum on same-sex unions.

Adding a historical twist to the legal drama, the CJI remarked that striking down the SMA would be a time machine ticket to the pre-Independence days. ("DeLorean, anyone?") Re-writing the SMA? That's like trespassing into the legislative territory - a no-go zone for the judiciary.

But here's where the plot thickens. While the CJI's stance on the SMA was clear, he threw in a silver lining for the LGBTQIA+ community. He called out to the Union, state governments, and UTs, urging them to shun discrimination against the queer community. Among his action-packed directives: public sensitization on queer rights, a dedicated hotline for the LGBTQIA+ community, and the establishment of safe havens or 'Garima Grihas'. And for the little ones? A strict no to forced sex-change surgeries on intersex children.

The CJI also had a PSA for the boys in khaki. No more police 'drop-ins' to quiz queer folks about their identity. And the 'return-to-your-family' drama? That's a no-no too. The police must tread carefully, ensuring they have their facts straight before registering any FIR against queer couples. Because love shouldn't be a crime, right?

In a post-verdict twist, the Supreme Court Bar Association's president, Adish Aggarwala, gave the judgment two thumbs up, echoing the court's sentiment against the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. ("To each their own," as they say!)

An Epic Hearing, Love on Trial, and a Nation in Anticipation

Back on May 11, the Supreme Court’s grand courtroom felt more like a theater. Over a grueling 10-day hearing marathon, the five-judge constitution bench, led by the stately Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, finally took a pause, signaling the end of this act. His fellow justices on this pivotal bench included Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha.

With a stern voice and clear intent, the Court outlined the boundaries of this legal drama: they would focus solely on the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act (SMA). Personal laws? Not on this stage, they declared.

As the petitioners stepped into the spotlight, they painted a vivid picture of India’s love affair with marriages, stating, “India is a marriage-based culture.” They passionately argued that LGBTQIA+ couples deserve the same marital joys and rights as their heterosexual counterparts, emphasizing the significance of the term “spouse” in financial documents, critical decisions related to health, inheritance, and the possibility of building a family through adoption or surrogacy.

However, it was Akkai Padmashali, one of the petitioners championing LGBTQIA+ marriages, who stole the show. She passionately addressed the apex court, sharing, "…The resistance from the heterosexual people, not all, but almost everyone was objecting to marriages of LGBTQI…today the whole country is set to hear the judgement…people’s eyes are on the Supreme Court. I identify myself as a woman and if I want to marry a man with his consent then what is the business of society in this?..people have the right to make their own choices when it comes to marriage…I hope the judgement won’t be disappointing.” With her heartfelt plea, she encapsulated the emotions of countless others awaiting the judgment with bated breath.

Final Act: The Centre's Stance and State Sentiments on Love Beyond Boundaries

When it comes to the heartfelt pleas for the legalization of same-sex marriage, the central government, often seen as the guardian of the nation's moral and legal compass, had clearly marked its territory. The government's official stand was revealed in an affidavit, echoing a stance of opposition.

In this official document, the Centre drew a clear line between decriminalized same-sex partnerships and the traditional Indian family unit. "Living together as partners by same-sex individuals... is not comparable with the Indian family unit", the affidavit stated, emphasizing the distinct nature of these relationships. According to the Centre, the two are as different as apples and oranges and cannot be treated on the same platter.

But the story didn't end there. Various petitioners, hopeful for a future where love knows no boundaries, demanded legal recognition of same-sex marriage. To this, the Centre responded with a firm hand, suggesting these petitions lacked merit and should be dismissed.

In a move that indicated its intention to gather a broader consensus, the Centre, on April 18, dispatched letters to various states, seeking their opinions on this contemporary debate of heart and tradition.

The response was a mixed bag of emotions and principles. Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan were firmly in the camp opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. On the other hand, states like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, and Sikkim played it safe, asking for more time to ponder and form an opinion on this deeply personal yet nationally significant issue.

And so, as the curtains draw on this act, the stage remains set for future debates, dialogues, and decisions on the path of love in India.