The petitions seeking review of the judgment refusing to recognize same-sex marriages are listed in the Supreme Court on July 10.
Notably, the review petitions will be considered by a new bench composition since two judges of the 5-judge bench which delivered the judgment- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Ravindra Bhat- have since retired.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BV Nagarathna replace the retired members of the bench.
The review petitions are listed in chambers(meaning that there is no open court hearing).
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.
The petitions seeking review of the judgment refusing to recognize same-sex marriages are listed in the Supreme Court on July 10. Notably, the review petitions will be considered by a new bench composition since two judges of the 5-judge bench which delivered the judgment- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Ravindra Bhat- have since retired.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BV Nagarathna replace the retired members of the bench. The other judges are Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.
The review petitions are listed in chambers(meaning that there is no open court hearing).
The Supreme Court on 17.10.2023 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 on the bench 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. 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. Case Title : Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and another vs.Union of India | RP (c) 1866/2023 and connected cases
