With the Supreme Court declining to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage on Tuesday, a section of the LGBTQ+ community, petitioners and activists highlighted the positives in the ruling and called for legislative action while others expressed dismay and concern.
A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court Tuesday unanimously refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, ruling that it is within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such union.
The top court, however, recognised equal rights for queer people and their protection, while calling for sensitisation of the general public so they don't face discrimination.
Pranab, one of the petitioners in the case, highlighted the positives in the Supreme Court's decision.
"They have not recognised (same-sex marriage)...but they have given us certain rights, and I am trying to focus on the positive side of that. They have said my partner can also claim the body after I am gone. I can also go to police.
"There are safety opportunities, healthcare opportunities for me. Yes, the decision was quite diplomatic to keep both sides happy, to balance with society," Pranab said.
Sharif Rangnekar, another petitioner in the case, expressed concerns over the lack of concrete timelines for implementing the changes.
"I think we don't have timelines. We have heard beautiful things said by the judges. But we don't have a concrete timeline on when these will be implemented. They did not clarify that," he said.
Dr Maeeli, an LGBTQ+ activist, expressed sadness over the lack of legal recognition for same-sex marriages in a democratic country like India, and called for legislative action in the matter.
The Supreme Court has directed Parliament to address the issue and 'we are looking forward to it', Dr Maeeli said.
Padmashali, another activist, commended the Supreme Court's verdict for breaking down stereotypical thinking.
"It has spoken with pride using terminologies of sex, gender, sexuality, talking about the acceptance of terminologies of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people.
"This shows India is in the process of development," Padmashali said.
Arvind Narrain of the People's Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) welcomed the judgment and emphasized the need to take this matter to Parliament.
"This is a political movement we need to respond to," he stated.
Poonam Muttreja, executive director of the Population Foundation of India, highlighted the disparities in the ruling and the need for more inclusive legal recognition.
"This leaves same-sex couples awaiting more inclusive legal recognition and associated benefits. I hope the government will act swiftly in establishing a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of queer couples and deliver them justice," she said.
Shubhankar Chakravorty, a gay man and consultant from Bengaluru, reflected on the historical journey of the LGBTQ+ community in India, saying, "Today's ruling will help better contextualise the premise of marriage equality and fuel a long-term movement."
He expressed optimism that the decision would bring LGBTQ+ lives and relationships to the mainstream.
