Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Monday said that he does not regret the Supreme Court's verdict in the same-sex marriage case and the outcome of a judgment is never personal to a judge. While speaking with the news agency PTI, Justice Chandrachud chose to stay silent on the criticism by jurists and other legal professionals on the Supreme Court's verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370.
The five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud unanimously held that Article 370 was a temporary provision and the President of has the power to nullify the special status of J&K under special circumstances. The verdict came under criticism from various jurists and legal professionals, who called it an attack on the federal nature of our Constitution, which is a part of its basic structure.
While speaking on the Supreme Court's judgment in the same-sex marriage case, Justice DY Chandrachud said that he does not regret the decision as the outcome of a judgment is never personal to a judge, the PTI report said. In the 3-2 verdict, the top court held that there was no fundamental right to marry and refused to allow recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act (SMA).
While CJI Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul ruled in favor of the recognition of civil unions, Justices Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha observed that the right to a civil union cannot be a constitutionally protected right when the right to marriage doesn't have the same standing.
The apex court has decided to review its judgement, and the case is expected to go to higher bench.
Justice DY Chandrachud also spoke on the recent allegation of "arbitrary" allocation of judges to the cases and said that the process can't be lawyer-driven. The remarks come as senior Supreme Court advocate Dushyant Dave wrote an open letter to CJI Chandrachud and raised questions about the listing of cases by the apex court's Registry.
One day after Dave's letter, another senior advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that some cases “arbitrarily” end up before Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
