Today, On 9th December, The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its earlier verdict on queer marriages. The court reiterated its stand, stating that legalizing same-sex marriages requires legislative action, not judicial intervention. Petitioners had sought a reconsideration of the ruling, citing concerns over equal rights. The decision upholds the court’s original stance on the matter.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India rejected review petitions that challenged its previous ruling, which did not legally recognize queer marriages under Indian law. These petitions submitted by various LGBTQ+ rights activists and organizations, who argued for the need to uphold fundamental rights and equality for the queer community.
A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Suryakant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta reviewed the petitions in chambers, which means there was no public court hearing. This new bench was formed after Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from the case in July 2024.
Notably, Justice PS Narasimha is the only member remaining from the original bench that delivered the October 2023 verdict, as all other members, including CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, and Hima Kohli, have since retired.
Read Also: Same-Sex Marriage | CJI to Consider Pleas Seeking Review of Verdict
The review bench stated that it thoroughly examined the judgments of Justice Ravindra Bhat (along with Justice Hima Kohli) and Justice PS Narasimha, which made up the majority opinion.
The bench concluded,
“We do not find any error apparent on the record. We further find that the view expressed in both judgments is in accordance with law and as such no interference is warranted.”
In the October 2023 verdict, the Supreme Court refused to legally recognize same-sex marriages, stating that such recognition falls within the legislature’s domain. The five-judge constitution bench unanimously declared that there is no fundamental right to marry and referred the decision on same-sex marriage legislation to Parliament.
Despite the unanimous decision, Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul advocated for the recognition of same-sex partnerships and emphasized the need for anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBTQIA+ rights. They also argued for the right of same-sex couples to adopt children. However, the bench was divided on the adoption issue, ruling 3:2 against it.
The judgment elicited mixed responses; advocates highlighted the importance of judicial restraint, while critics deemed it a missed chance to broaden fundamental rights.
The review petitions filed on the basis that the ruling overlooked crucial constitutional principles, including equality, non-discrimination, and the right to live with dignity. Petitioners contended that the court’s refusal to acknowledge queer marriages rendered millions within the LGBTQ+ community vulnerable, depriving them of essential rights related to spousal benefits, adoption, and inheritance.
As per standard procedures, the review petitions were examined in chambers by the Constitution Bench. The bench collectively decided to dismiss the petitions, concluding that no significant grounds had been presented to justify revisiting the original ruling. In a brief statement, the court reaffirmed that its prior decision was rooted in a comprehensive interpretation of the Constitution and existing laws. It underscored that the ruling had already granted considerable recognition to the rights of queer individuals, including the right to cohabit and form unions, despite not legalizing same-sex marriages.
The same-sex marriage case in India revolves around the recognition of marriage rights for LGBTQ+ couples. In October 2023, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court ruled against granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages under existing Indian laws. The bench held that framing such laws falls under the domain of Parliament, not the judiciary. However, the judgment affirmed the constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, emphasizing their dignity, equality, and right to cohabit and form partnerships.
The petitioners argued that the denial of marriage rights violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 21 (right to life and liberty). The court’s decision sparked debates, with some praising its acknowledgment of LGBTQ+ rights and others criticizing it for deferring to legislative processes. Following public and legal discourse, the case is now set for review by a new bench, aiming to reconsider its implications and potentially address gaps in the legal framework for same-sex couples.
Case Title: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and another vs.Union of India | RP (c) 1866/2023
Read Attachment
