Review petitions on same-sex marriage to be considered by SC on Nov 28, petitioners seek open court hearing

A five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud had on October 17 refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those that are recognised by law.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court will consider on November 28, review petitions against its verdict, which refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. Counsel for petitioners urged the apex court to allow an open court hearing.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing a petitioner, mentioned the matter before a bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud.

Rohatgi submitted that all the judges (on the constitution bench which delivered the judgment) agree that there is discrimination, and if there is discrimination then there has to be a remedy. Rohatgi stressed that the lives of a large number of people depend on it and urged the bench led by CJI to allow open court hearings. He said the matter is listed for consideration on November 28. The Chief Justice said, “We will look at it and decide…”.

Udit Sood, one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case, contended that the apex court ought to review and correct its decision because the judgment in the case suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and is self-contradictory and manifestly unjust.

A five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud had on October 17 refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those that are recognised by law. In a unanimous decision by the constitution, the bench said that there was no fundamental right to marry.

However, CJI and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul advocated for the recognition of same-sex partnerships and also pushed for anti-discrimination laws to safeguard the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Sood’s plea said, “The majority judgment overlooks that marriage, at its core, is an enforceable social contract. The right to so 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. No contract, nor forceful state action like imprisonment, may curtail an adult’s fundamental right to marry”.

The plea contended that the discrimination faced by the queer community is acknowledged in the verdict but the cause of the discrimination is not removed, and the legislative choices see same-sex couples as less than human by denying them equal rights. The plea also said that the government's stand shows that the respondents believe LGBTQ people are "a problem".