Following the Supreme Court’s decision to defer the issue of same-sex marriage to Parliament, India’s political landscape witnessed a range of reactions, with the BJP maintaining silence and the opposition expressing mixed views. While the RSS and VHP welcomed the verdict, the ruling party refrained from making any official statement, considering its prior opposition to the pleas for legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The Congress, although silent on the verdict, emphasized its commitment to safeguarding the freedoms and rights of citizens. However, it’s worth noting that the Congress-ruled Rajasthan opposed the same-sex marriage pleas, reflecting the complex dynamics within the party.
In contrast, the RSS and VHP expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, highlighting their stance against legalizing same-sex marriages. The VHP’s national working president, Alok Kumar, applauded the ruling, emphasizing that such unions do not constitute a fundamental right, and reiterated the organization’s stance against granting adoption rights to same-sex couples.
Opposition voices, including those within Congress, criticized the government’s reluctance to address the issue directly. Senior Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi, a prominent figure in the case, expressed disappointment, suggesting that the government’s intention was to defer the matter indefinitely.
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor criticized the ruling party, indicating skepticism regarding their willingness to engage in meaningful parliamentary discourse on the matter. While the JD(U) and other parties such as the SP and BSP, opted to study the judgment before making any official statements, the CPI (M) and CPI refrained from issuing any immediate responses.
Senior CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, while supporting the minority judgment, lamented the missed opportunity to recognize the union of same-sex couples, suggesting alternative pathways for achieving justice in such cases.
Singhvi expressed his disappointment, stating that the court’s decision missed the chance for a historic leap, underscoring the potential for accommodating same-sex marriage within the legal framework. He emphasized that the judiciary has previously taken more substantial interpretive leaps in other cases, suggesting that this was a missed opportunity for progressive change.
