The CJI said the law didn't preclude unmarried couples from adopting.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while announcing his verdict on a clutch of petitions demanding legal status to same-sex marriages, today struck down the Central Adoption Resource Authority's (CARA) regulation that restricted queer and unmarried couples from adopting children. The five-judge bench, however, in a 3:2 verdict, ruled that non-heterosexual couples cannot be granted the right to jointly adopt a child.
CJI Chandrachud said it couldn't be assumed only "heterosexual married couples can be good parents".
CARA is a statutory body affiliated to the Ministry of Women and Child Development. It is the nodal body for adoption of Indian children. It regulates and monitors all adoptions taking place in India, including inter-country adoptions.
The CJI said the law didn't preclude unmarried couples from adopting, and that the Union of India hadn't proven restricting unmarried couples from adopting was in the best interest of children. "CARA has exceeded its authority in barring unmarried couples," he said.
"Differentia between married couples and unmarried couples has no reasonable nexus with the objective of CARA - the best interests of the child," CJI Chandrachud said.
He said the CARA circular (which excludes queer couples from adoption) is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution, reported Live Law.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to grant legal recognition to same-sax marriages, holding that it is only for Parliament and state legislatures to create such institutions and grant them legal validation.
The Constitution bench -- comprising CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha -- were unanimous in their judgement that it was beyond the remit of courts to issue a positive direction to the legislature to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages.
The court refused to change the meaning of the Special Marriage Act. However, it declared queer couples have the right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion or interference.
Three of the five judges ruled there can't be a right to form civil unions. By the same majority, the court also held that non-heterosexual couples cannot be granted the right to jointly adopt a child.
The Supreme Court in a recent decision held that when a contract stipulates a specific time frame within which the consideration needs to be paid by the 'buyer' to execute the 'agreement to sale' by the 'seller', then the buyer ...
YES! 🚫 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 — like proven misconduct, criminal activity, or if the employment contract specifically permits termination without notice. 🧾 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭, 1947, and state-specific Shops & Establishment Acts, arbitrary dismissal can invite legal ...
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while allowing a bail plea, held that the grant of bail to a co-accused person cannot be contingent on the surrender of another accused who is also pertinently the main accused in the ...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 27) came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading advertisements regarding medicinal cures, despite making an assurance to the Court earlier in November last year that no such statements would be ...
The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that transgender persons can avail the already earmarked reservations in jobs and educational admissions and there is no separate reservation being provided to them. In 2014, the top court directed the Centre and ...
🔹 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒈𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚. 𝑨𝒄𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚. 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚. These pillars define a true legal professional. But in today’s fast-paced legal landscape, how do we maintain them? ✔ 𝑼𝒑𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚: A lawyer’s duty is to protect sensitive information—breaching it damages trust. ✔ 𝑨𝒗𝒐𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 ...