The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain review petitions challenging its landmark decision rejecting legal recognition to same-sex marriages in India.
In a judgment delivered earlier, the top court held that there was no constitutional basis to grant legal sanction to same-sex unions, a stance that sparked widespread debate and disappointment among LGBTQIA+ activists and allies.
In its latest ruling, the court stated that there was "no error apparent on the face of the record" in its earlier judgment. The bench emphasised that the views expressed in the original verdict were in accordance with the law and required no further interference.
Consequently, all review petitions seeking a reconsideration of the decision were dismissed, reinforcing the court’s earlier stance.
A five-judge bench on Thursday took up petitions challenging the 2023 verdict on same-sex marriage.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha and Dipankar Datta reviewed the pleas in the chambers and there wasn't a hearing in the open court.
Last year, in July, the petitioners sought a hearing in an open courtroom considering the public interest involved in the issue. A new bench had to be reconstituted following the retirements of Justices SK Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, former Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kohli. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is now the Chief Justice, recused himself last year.
In their review pleas, the petitioners argued that the Supreme Court verdict compelled gay couples to remain in the closet and lead dishonest lives.
In October 2023, a Constitution bench headed by then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud declined to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages. In a 3-2 verdict, the court also declined to allow civil unions for same-sex couples.
Justice Bhat wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Kaul, along with Chief Justice Chandrachud, gave the minority view. However, all the judges were unanimous in their opinion that it was not possible to tweak the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to allow same-sex marriage.
Maintaining that it didn't want to encroach on the legislative domain, the majority judgment said Parliament was the ideal forum to debate and pass laws on the question of conferring legal status to same-sex marriage.
In their minority judgment, then-Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul said they were in favour of extending civil union to same-sex couples.
A civil union differs from marriage. Granting 'civil union' status would have given same-sex couples specific rights and responsibilities that are normally enjoyed by married couples.
Source: India Today