SC Dismisses Review Petitions On Same-Sex Marriage Recognition, Cites ‘No Interference Is Warranted’
SC Dismisses Review Petitions On Same-Sex Marriage Recognition, Cites ‘No Interference Is Warranted’
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking a review of its October 17, 2023, ruling, which had rejected the plea to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. A five-judge bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta reviewed the petitions in chamber and found no error apparent on the face of the majority view authored by Justice (retired) S Ravindra Bhat in the 2023 decision.
The original ruling, delivered in four separate judgments, cited “institutional limitations” and declined to amend provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). The bench, led by then Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, stated that there was “no unqualified right” to marriage and left the matter to Parliament for legislative action.
In the review dismissal, the bench observed, “We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The judgments delivered are in accordance with the law and do not warrant interference. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.”
The petitioners argued that the majority ruling contradicted itself by recognizing the violation of fundamental rights yet failing to remedy the discrimination. They contended that the judgment undermined the right to marry or form a union, essential to dignity and equality under the Constitution, and forced young queer Indians to live dishonest lives in the absence of legal recognition for their unions.
In the 2023 ruling, while the majority rejected legal recognition for same-sex marriages, a minority view by then CJI Chandrachud supported civil unions. He noted that such unions stem from constitutional rights and called for state recognition. However, the majority left this decision to the legislative domain, asserting no fundamental right to marriage exists.
Petitioners claimed the ruling disregarded precedents set in cases like Navtej Johar, K S Puttaswamy, and NALSA, where individual freedoms and rights to choice were upheld. They urged the court to reconsider the judgment, deeming it unjust and self-contradictory.
The bench’s dismissal reinforced its stance that such matters require parliamentary intervention, not judicial decree.
