The Supreme Court’s ‘no fundamental right to marry’ is wrong
The HinduSo we have it from the Supreme Court of India in Supriyo Chakraborty. It is in this background that the Court, in Supriyo Chakraborty, was asked to decide the right of recognition to marriage by the state of non-heterosexual couples The human rights declaration The fundamental core decision of the Supreme Court in Supriyo Chakraborty is that there is no fundamental right to marry in India. Editorial | Law and custom: On the Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage Critics would argue that the Indian Constitution does not provide for the right to marry explicitly. Thus, in the context of handcuffing and consequential torture contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution, in Prem Shankar Shukla, the Supreme Court referred to Article 5 of the UDHR stating that, “After all, even while discussing the relevant statutory and constitutional requirements court and counsel must never forget the core principle found in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” This was reiterated in Francis Coralie Mullin, which based on the concept of dignity stated,”It would thus be seen that there is implicit in Article 21 the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which is enunciated in Article 5 of the ”. In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court relied on Article 10 of the UDHR to read in principles of natural justice into the administrative process to state, “Hark back to Article 10 of the to realise that human rights have but a verbal hollow if the protective armour of Audi alteram partem is deleted”.