'Self-contradictory and manifestly unjust’: Review petition in SC on same-sex marriage verdict

The plea filed by 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 -- Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi: A review petition has been moved against the Supreme Court's refusal to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages.

The plea filed by 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 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 such a contract is available to anyone capable of consenting. Adults of any faith, or nor 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".

The plea submitted that majority judgment warrants review because it summarily disregards the foregoing authority to make the chilling declaration that the Constitution guarantees no fundamental right to marry, found a family, or form a civil union.

“The majority judgment effectively compels young queer Indians to remain in the closet and lead dishonest lives if they wish for the joys of a real family. It is fallacious that, under these facts, and in the absence of a fundamental right to marry or form a union, the rights to equal protection, dignity and fraternity are insufficient to justify judicial intervention”, said the plea.

The plea said it is critical that the apex court grant the present review petition and correct its ruling that unconstitutionally subjects the petitioners and their fundamental rights to social morality and politics.