New Delhi: While speaking at an event on LGBTQ+ rights, Supreme Court Justice DY Chandrachud on Tuesday, August 30, said that he disagreed with the lyrics of the famous Beatles song ‘All You Need Is Love’.
Judge Chandrachud referred to the song to emphasize that decriminalizing homosexuality will not only achieve equality and end discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.
“The Beatles famously sang ‘All you need is love, love; Love is all you need’. At the risk of ruffling the feathers of music fans everywhere, I take the liberty of disagreeing with them and saying: maybe we need a little more than love,” he told an event hosted by Britain’s High Commission for commemorate the Supreme Court of Justice of 2018. Navtej Singh Johar judgment.
He was speaking on the topic: ‘Beyond Navtej: The Future of the LGBTQ+ Movement in India’.
“Structural changes, as well as attitude changes, are essential. Equality is not achieved only with the decriminalization of homosexuality, but must extend to all spheres of life, including the home, the workplace and public places. bar and bench reported it saying.
Defending the rights of the community, he added: “The presence of queer people in public spaces should be the norm and not the exception. The completion of this simple but crucial task would bring the decision to life in Navtej.”
On September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court shot down provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which was effectively used to criminalize same-sex relationships in India for over a century. Through this historic trial, Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of Indiahomosexuality was effectively decriminalized.
Judge Chandrachud, while delivering the Navtej Singh Johar trial in 2018, had stressed that this case is much more than decriminalizing a provision. “It is about an aspiration to realize the constitutional rights and equal existence of the LGBT community like other citizens,” he said.
He also mentioned the judgment on the right to privacy, saying: “Denying the LGBT community their right to sexual orientation is a denial of their citizenship and a violation of their privacy. They cannot be pushed into the dark by oppressive colonial legislation.”
However, after the Section 377 ruling, multiple petitions were filed across India, with couples seeking police protection in cases of family intolerance. For example, in May this year, the Kerala High Court tidy that a lesbian couple, Adhila Nassrin, 22, and Fathima Noora, 23, were allowed to live together despite opposition from their families.
Justice Chandrachud in his speech to the British High Commission also stressed the importance of people’s right to choose to live their lives in a way that deviates from the ‘accepted norm’.
“When I say unconventional families, I don’t mean just queer couples, but also others who choose to live their lives in ways that deviate from the accepted norm. Our very understanding of the family unit must change to include the myriad ways that people forge family bonds,” she said.
Recently, a Supreme Court panel, consisting of Justices Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, expanded the definition of “family” and observed that “family relationships can take the form of domestic partnerships, unmarried, or queer relationships.”
Same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in India, however, there is also no legal or constitutional provision restricting it. For example, in December last year, a gay couple had an intimate wedding in Telangana. calcutta too witnessed their first gay wedding this July.