New Delhi, Oct 18: The Supreme Court of India, a Constitutional Bench, recently delivered a majority judgment, which notably legalized same-sex marriage. However, the same bench found itself divided when considering whether unmarried couples, including same-sex partners, should be allowed to jointly adopt children. This issue sparked a legal and moral debate, leading to a split among the justices.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emerged as the proponent of allowing unmarried couples, irrespective of their sexual orientation, to jointly adopt children. He argued that Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations, which currently prohibits unmarried partners from becoming prospective adoptive parents, is unconstitutional. In his view, it infringes upon the fundamental rights of queer couples. Chief Justice Chandrachud noted that the existing regulations only permit individuals to adopt, not couples, regardless of their marital status.
Also Read: BJP to contest 23 seats in Mizoram election
However, the majority views, represented by Justices S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, disagreed with Chief Justice Chandrachud’s perspective. They upheld the validity of Regulation 5(3). Justice Bhat, in particular, stressed the need for regulatory authorities, such as the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) and the Union government, to consider the unique circumstances of de facto families.
These are cases where single individuals are allowed to adopt and subsequently enter into non-matrimonial relationships. Justice Bhat highlighted the potential issue of adopted children from unmarried couples being excluded from the benefits typically available to children of married couples. He emphasized that this aspect requires further consideration, suggesting that it falls beyond the purview of the court.
Chief Justice Chandrachud, on the other hand, argued that the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) does not explicitly prohibit unmarried couples from adopting children. He pointed out that Regulation 5(3) excludes unmarried couples based on the requirement that they must have been in a “stable marital relationship” for at least two years.
Chief Justice Chandrachud criticized the assumption that only married couples could provide a stable and nurturing environment for children. He contended that this belief lacks empirical evidence and that unmarried relationships can be just as stable and nurturing as their married counterparts. According to him, marriage is not the sole foundation upon which families and households are constructed.
The differing opinions within the Supreme Court underscore the complexity of the issue surrounding unmarried couples’ adoption rights. The debate revolves around the definition of a stable family environment and whether this stability is linked exclusively to marital status. The court’s decision in this matter has far-reaching implications for the rights of unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to provide loving homes for adopted children.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case highlights the ongoing challenges and debates surrounding family dynamics, individual rights, and societal values in contemporary India. It remains to be seen how the Indian legal system will address these concerns and whether unmarried couples will be granted the right to jointly adopt children in the future.
