 "Here's why SC refused to review pleas against same-sex marriage ruling")
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed review petitions challenging its landmark ruling that denied legal recognition to same-sex marriages in India.
The apex court had earlier ruled that there was no constitutional basis for granting legal recognition to same-sex unions, a decision that sparked significant debate and disappointment among LGBTQIA+ communities and their supporters.
In its latest decision, the Bench stated that there was “no error apparent on the face of the record” in its prior judgment. It reaffirmed that the conclusions in the original verdict were consistent with the law and did not warrant reconsideration.
As a result, all review petitions seeking a reconsideration of the decision were dismissed, upholding the court’s earlier stance.
The review petitions were examined on Thursday by a five-judge Bench, which reviewed them in chambers without an open-court hearing. The Bench comprised Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, according to Bar and Bench.
“We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgments is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted,” the court said.
Also Read
Last year, in July, the petitioners had requested an open-court hearing, citing the significant public interest involved. However, the matter was eventually reviewed in chambers. A new Bench was constituted following the retirements of Justices SK Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justice Kohli. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from the case.
The petitioners argued in their review pleas that the court’s ruling forced same-sex couples to conceal their identities and live inauthentic lives.
What did the Supreme Court say in its 2023 ruling?
In October 2023, a Constitution Bench led by then-Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud delivered a 3-2 judgment rejecting the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Bench also declined to permit civil unions for same-sex couples.
Justice Bhat authored the majority opinion, while Justice Kaul and CJI Chandrachud dissented. However, the entire Bench agreed that the Special Marriage Act, 1954, could not be amended to accommodate same-sex unions.
The majority judgment underscored that decisions regarding the legal status of same-sex marriages fell within the purview of Parliament and not the judiciary. In their minority opinion, CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul advocated for extending civil union rights to same-sex couples. Civil unions, distinct from marriage, would have granted same-sex couples certain legal rights and responsibilities typically associated with marriage.