SC refuses to reconsider same-sex marriage order

SC refuses to reconsider same-sex marriage order

SC refuses to reconsider same-sex marriage order ByUtkarsh Anand, New Delhi Jan 10, 2025 08:40 AM IST Share Via Copy Link While the previous judgment was by 3-2, the dismissal of review petition is unanimously by five judges

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain review petitions challenging its October 2023 judgment that denied legal recognition to same-sex marriages and civil unions, dealing a setback to members of the LGBTQIA+ community and advocates for marriage equality rights.

SC held that the issues raised in the review pleas did not meet the threshold for revisiting the 3-2 majority judgment delivered in 2023 (HT)

A five-judge bench, comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha and Dipankar Datta, concluded in chamber proceedings that the review petitions lacked sufficient merit to warrant reconsideration of the earlier ruling or an open court hearing.

While the previous judgment was by 3-2, the dismissal of review petition is unanimously by five judges, in a reasoned order. This effectively puts to rest any judicial reconsideration of the October 2023 verdict, which had declined to extend marriage and civil union rights to same-sex couples in a 3-2 ruling, even as the petitioners retain the option of moving a curative plea as the ultimate legal recourse.

The bench, considering the bundle of review petitions submitted through circulation, held that the issues raised in the review pleas did not meet the threshold for revisiting the 3-2 majority judgment delivered in 2023. Adhering to the standard practice of closed-door proceedings for review petitions, the bench found no justification for departing from this norm or allowing oral arguments.

“We have carefully gone through the judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr S Ravindra Bhat (former judge) speaking for himself and for Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli (former judge), as well as the concurring opinion expressed by one of us (Hon’ble Mr Justice PS Narasimha), constituting the majority view. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record,” stated the order.

It added: “We further find that the view expressed in both the judgments is in accordance with law and, as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.”

Justice PS Narasimha was the sole member of the original constitution bench that issued the October 2023 decision. The other members of the original bench - then-Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli-- have since retired. The bench was reconstituted after justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself in July 2024, citing personal reasons.

The October 2023 ruling by the Constitution bench had declined to grant same-sex couples the right to marry or form civil unions, asserting that such recognition falls squarely within the legislative domain. The majority opinion, authored by justices Bhat, Kohli and Narasimha, held that extending marriage rights to queer couples was not a constitutionally mandated obligation.

In contrast, then-CJI Chandrachud and justice Kaul dissented, emphasising that the exclusion of non-heterosexual couples from marriage and adoption laws violates constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. Both dissenting judges underscored the state’s duty to enact enabling legislation to protect the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals.

The review petitions contended that the majority judgment failed to align with constitutional principles and left queer couples without meaningful relief, despite acknowledging the discrimination they face. Advocates argued that the court should have interpreted the Special Marriage Act to include non-heterosexual unions or provided a framework for civil unions.

Petitioner Udit Sood, a US-based lawyer and one of the original 52 petitioners, had described the judgment as “manifestly unjust.” Another petitioner couple, Supriya Chakravarty and Abhay Dang, argued that the court’s refusal to intervene denied constitutional courts their role in ensuring that statutory laws conform to fundamental rights. They further argued that denying marriage equality contradicts the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments affirming the dignity, autonomy, and equality of LGBTQIA+ individuals, including the historic rulings in Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India (2018) and NALSA Vs Union of India (2014).

During previous mentioning of this case, senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the review petitioners, had sought an open court hearing, citing the societal and constitutional significance of the matter. However, the bench on Thursday concluded that the issues raised in the review petitions had already been comprehensively addressed in the original judgment and did not warrant further deliberation.

The Supreme Court’s decision to decline the review petitions reinforces its stance that marriage equality and civil union rights for same-sex couples are legislative matters.