So, what do you think? What are your thoughts?
In my own opinion, the Indian SC's decision is undemocratic, unfair, unreasonable, and homophobic. I just don't like the idea that the government is interfering with the private (sex) lives of its citizens. A government whose democracy is genuine won't have laws like that of India. The Republic of India must authenticate its "democracy." We're already in the 21st century. Live and let live! :D
The point of their ruling was that, within the legal context of their constitution, the law on the books was not unconstitutional and thus not a matter for the courts to decide. This is a
good thing because it means the courts are not claiming power that is not theirs. If Indian law is anything like US law, the Supreme Court's decisions are generally based on whether a given law is even legal to begin with. The decision to overturn current law on grounds other than strictly legal ones is something that should (and does) reside in the legislature, the most direct voice of the people (or in the US, it can be done by referendum, an even more direct measure of the will of the people).
I understand that a lot of people are harmed by the law and I, too, think it is unethical. However, we have a system in place to handle issues like this. We should work within the context of the system, not break it to achieve a quick win. If we give the courts the ability to legislate on moral grounds, you may not like where that ends up, since you are forfeiting decisions about morality to a very small group of people. Even if they did agree on this issue, it's not certain that they would agree on the next issue of moral relevance. Perhaps a later court would strike down a law that allows gay marriage as "unethical" if they had granted themselves that power. But they didn't. They realized that the scope of the judicial branch is to rule on the validity of the law in the context of higher laws, such as constitutional law. That means that even if they disagreed ethically with a law that allows gay marriage, they would not have the power to overturn it merely based on personal opinion, they would have to make their ruling in the context of the constitution.
Again, I get that this isn't an ideal situation, but the system
is working here (at least in regards to this specific court ruling). This needs to be something that is overturned in the legislature (or by referendum if that is an option in their government) if the people of India wish to preserve the balance of powers in their democracy. I vaguely remember a similar case in the SCOTUS that disappointed a lot of people that went on to be solved the
right way and at least one member of the SCOTUS later (after they were off the bench) said that they were happy when the issue was resolved in the legislature (in other words, they ruled contrary to their personal beliefs on the issue because they
had to).