The Indian Supreme Court decides against legalizing same-sex marriage

Two of the judges, including Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, supported civil union and giving same-sex couples access to the same "benefits that married persons enjoy."

In addition, the chief justice gave out a lengthy set of directives to the government, requesting that they ensure that all forms of discrimination against the "queer community" are eliminated and that they be shielded from abuse and harassment. Additionally, Justice Chandrachud stated that "gay and unmarried couples" could adopt a child together.

However, once all the justices had spoken and the three judges who made up the majority of the bench did not support his list, it was evident that Justice Chandrachud's instructions would remain but that—directions.

When the hearings first began, it appeared that India would soon legalize same-sex unions, making history.

The five-judge constitutional bench had previously stated that while they would not interfere with religious people's personal laws, they would consider changing the Special Marriage Act to include LGBTQ+ persons.

It became evident, however, as the proceedings went on how intricate the situation was when the bench acknowledged that numerous laws, many of which overlap with religion personal laws, govern matters such as divorce, adoption, succession, maintenance, and other connected issues.

Activists and same-sex couples are "disappointed" in Tuesday's decision.

I had high expectations when I entered the courtroom this morning, but as soon as I heard the judges read their rulings, I was greatly let down. Gay rights campaigner Sharif Rangnekar told the BBC, "My dreams were dashed.

"Leaving everything up to a government committee without a timetable for when it will be established or when it will grant us rights puts us in a position of great bureaucratic ambiguity. It is quite unsettling.

A 34-year same-sex partner, Pia Chanda, told the BBC that the Supreme Court was "playing passing the hat."

She continued, "This decision is a predicted farce and will maintain discrimination."

Many people have also praised the verdict.

The Supreme Court Bar Association's Adish Aggarwala expressed his satisfaction with the court's acceptance of the government's position that it lacked the authority to legalize same-sex unions to media.

He continued, "That right exclusively belongs to the Indian parliament, and we are pleased that the court concurs with us.

Prior to the ruling, Mr. Aggarwala had told reporters that it would not be a good idea to permit same-sex unions since it is "not in conformity with the system prevalent in India."

A nation with an estimated tens of millions of LGBTQ+ citizens was closely following the issue. The Indian government estimated the population there to be 2.5 million in 2012, however estimations based on global figures indicate that there are actually more than 135 million people living there.

Many same-sex couples had previously informed the BBC that they would get married if the petitions were successful, so they had been hanging their hopes on this crucial decision.

In India, attitudes around sex and sexuality are still predominantly conservative, and campaigners claim that stigma and prejudice are still experienced by the community.

One of the petitioners' attorneys, Mukul Rohatgi, stated at the hearing that the high court's ruling will encourage society to recognize the LGBTQ+ community as equals because it occasionally needed a push to do so.

But today's prod did not come for India's LGBTQ+ community.