Is Article 21's 'Right to Life' vs Lata Singh judgement going off the rails?
constitutional general advanced concept_confusionOkay guys, I'm stuck on this one. I was studying Article 21 and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, and then I came across Lata Singh vs State of UP judgement. Now, I know this case has been debated to death, but seriously, I'm confused. In 2020, a SC bench of 3 judges, including Justice RF Nariman, held that the constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 does not include the right to marry someone of the same sex. But then, in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018), the same SC bench ruled that consensual homosexual relations among adults in the privacy of their homes are protected under Article 21.
Seriously, how do we make sense of this double-speak?
2 Comments
Maine Article 21 ke 'Right to Life' aur Lata Singh ka case dekha hai. Mujhe lagta hai ki judicmary ki understanding ne kuch wrong ghati ho rahi hai. Lata v case mein SC ne marriage ke rights ko precedence diya, lekin kuchh judgements mein yeh 'Right to Life' se clash kar raha hai. Ye judgement koi bhi direction nahi de raha, confusion ban rahi hai.
Bhai, let's not get too worked up. The Lata Singh judgement was about forced marriage, not exactly 'Right to Life' under Article 21. Supreme Court held that forced marriage was a violation of human dignity and thus, a part of Right to Life. It's more of a nuanced interpretation rather than a clear-cut 'off the rails' situation. We need to understand the context and SC's reasoning behind it.