Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court has dismissed the review petitions filed against the verdict refusing to recognize queer marriages in the same-sex marriage case. A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Suryakant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Datta considered the review petitions in chambers(meaning that there is no open court hearing).
The new Bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused from hearing the review petitions in July 2024. Notably, Justice PS Narasimha is the only member of the original Bench which delivered the October 2023 verdict, as all other members (CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli) have retired.
The review Bench said that it has carefully gone through the judgments of Justice Ravindra Bhat (speaking for himself and Justice Hima Kohli) and Justice PS Narasimha which constituted the majority. The review Bench said that it found no error apparent on these two judgments. The order of the Bench read, “We do not find any error apparent on the record. We further find that the view expressed in both judgments are in accordance with law and as such no interference is warranted.”
The Supreme Court had on October 17,2023 refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India, saying that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. However, all the judges agreed that the Union of India, as per its earlier statement, shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer union without legal recognition of their relationship as a “marriage”.
The court also unanimously held that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion, or interference; but refrained from passing any directions to formally recognize such relationships as marriages. CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul agreed to recognize the right of queer couples to form a civil union; however, the other three judges of the Bench disagreed on this aspect.
Post that, several review petitions were filed, faulting the judgment for not affording any legal protection to queer couples despite acknowledging the discrimination faced by them. This amounts to abdication of the court’s duty to uphold and protect fundamental rights, they had argued, reports Live Law.
It has also been argued that judgment suffers from “errors apparent on the face of the record” and is “self-contradictory and manifestly unjust”. The Court recognises that the Petitioners’ fundamental rights are being violated by the State through discrimination but fails to take the logical next step of prohibiting this discrimination.
