Supreme Court to consider petitions seeking review of verdict refusing legal recognition

According to the July 10 list of causes posted on the Supreme Court website, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud would hear the petitions seeking review of the October 17 verdict last year.

Supreme Court. File photo

THE Supreme Court The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on July 10 a series of petitions seeking a review of its ruling last year that denied legal recognition to same-sex marriage.

According to the July 10 list of causes posted on the Supreme Court website, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud would hear the pleas seeking review of the October 17 verdict last year.

In accordance with practice, applications for review are examined in chambers by benches of five judges.

Besides the CJI, the other members of the bench will be Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and PS Narasimha.

In a setback for gay rights activists, the Supreme Court on October 17 refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no absolute right” to marriage except those recognized by law.

The Supreme Court, however, made a strong plea for the rights of homosexual persons so that they are not discriminated against in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as ‘Garima Greh’ in all districts to provide shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence and dedicated helpline numbers that they could use in case of any problem.

In affirming that transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the freedom and right to marry under existing legal provisions, the Supreme Court said that a right to legal recognition of the right to union, similar to marriage or civil union, or to granting legal status to the relationship can only be achieved through an “enacted law.”

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.

The five judges were unanimous in refusing to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed that it was within the competence of Parliament to amend the law to validate such a union.

While the CJI had written a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (since retired) had written a 17-page judgment in which he broadly agreed with Justice Chandrachud’s views.

Justice S Ravindra Bhat (since retired), who wrote an 89-page judgment for himself and Justice Hima Kohli, disagreed with some of the conclusions reached by the CJI, including on the applicability of adoption rules to same-sex couples.

Justice PS Narasimha said in his 13-page verdict that he fully agreed with the reasoning given and the conclusions reached by Justice Bhat.

The judges were unanimous in considering that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and not an “urban or elite” phenomenon.

In his judgment, the CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s assurance that the Centre will constitute a committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary for the purpose of defining and elucidating the scope of rights of same-sex couples in union.

THE LGBTQIA++ Human rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 before the Supreme Court that decriminalized consensual same-sex sex, had petitioned the Supreme Court to seek the validation of same-sex marriage and related measures, such as the right to adopt, register as parents in schools, open bank accounts and enjoy inheritance and insurance benefits.

Some of the petitioners urged the Supreme Court to use its plenary power, “prestige and moral authority” to push society to recognize such a union that would ensure LGBTQIA++ people can lead “dignified” lives like heterosexuals.

LGBTQIA++ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual, and allies.

This story is sourced from a third party syndicated feed, from agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility for its reliability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to edit, delete or remove (without notice) the content at its sole discretion for any reason.