There were four judgments — one each pronounced by CJI Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha. Justice Hima Kohli agreed with Justice Bhat. In their verdicts, the judges agreed on certain issues and differed on others.
“The Constitution does not expressly recognise a fundamental right to marry,” wrote the CJI. Similarly, Justice Bhat ruled: “There is no unqualified right to marriage except that recognised by a statute, including space left by custom.”
“An entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status upon the parties to the relationship can be only through enacted law. A sequitur of this is that the court cannot enjoin or direct the creation of such regulatory framework resulting in legal status,” Justice Bhat wrote.Maintaining that gender of a person was not the same as their sexuality, CJI Chandrachud said: “Therefore, since a transgender person could be in a heterosexual relationship, a union between a transman and a transwoman or vice-versa could be registered under the Special Marriage Act and other existing laws.”
With regard to the right of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry as per the existing statutory laws or personal laws, the verdict was unanimous as Justice Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha agreed with the CJI’s opinion.
