On 1st November (Wednesday), a review petition was filed before the Supreme Court challenging its 17th October verdict. Udit Sood, one of the petitioners, has filed a review petition before the top court pertaining to the same-sex marriage case, as per media reports.
Challenging the top court’s ruling, Sood describes the Supreme Court verdict as “self-contradictory and manifestly unjust”.
The review petition reads, “The discrimination faced by the queer community is acknowledged in the verdict but the cause of the discrimination is not removed. The legislative choices see same-sex couples as less than human by denying them equal rights.”
The petitioners in the review petition claim that the government’s stand shows that the respondents believe LGBTQ people are “a problem”.
The petitioner further states, “The majority judgement overlooks that marriage, at its core, is an enforceable social contract. The right to this contract is available to anyone capable of consenting. Adults of any faith or no faith may engage in it. No one group of people may define for another what ‘marriage’ means.”
Meanwhile, hours after the pronouncement of the verdict, several petitioners in the case had expressed their strong dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court ruling. According to some petitioners, the apex court verdict was ‘Full of sound and fury signifying nothing’.
A fortnight earlier, on 17th October, the apex court had refused to grant recognition to same-sex marriages or civil unions. It had asserted that it was up to Parliament to make laws to enable it. A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha had ruled against recognising same-sex marriages.
The five-judge constitution bench, in a unanimous decision, ruled that there is no unqualified right to marriage and same-sex couples cannot claim that as a fundamental right.
However, the five-judge bench disagreed on adoption, civil union, and recognition of queer couples. It gave a 3:2 verdict against adoption in four separate judgements. Justices Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha jointly issued the majority opinion, while Justice Narasimha provided a separate concurring opinion. Whereas CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul had delivered separate dissenting judgments.
In the minority opinion, CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul advocated for the recognition of same-sex partnerships. They also pushed for anti-discrimination laws to safeguard the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals.
However, in its verdict, the Supreme Court directed the Union government to constitute a committee that would examine the rights and entitlements of persons in the queer unions, without legal recognition of their relationship as a “marriage”.
The hearing before the apex court went on for a total of 10 days, following which they reserved their verdict on 11th May this year. Although the petitioners initially challenged the Hindu Marriage Act, the Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act (SMA), the apex court decided to not touch the personal laws and confine the case to the inclusion and recognition of same-sex marriages under the SMA [pdf].
Click here to read all about the 4 fundamental issues that were touched on during the course of the hearing and what each judge said.
As such, the all-out effort to legalise ‘same-sex marriage’ and its inclusion within the ambit of the Special Marriage Act was turned down by a 3-2 verdict.
