Supreme Court dismissed applications seeking a review of its October 2023 decision that declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, noting that there was no “error apparent” and no “interference is warranted”.
After initially refusing to hold a public hearing on the requests, a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta considered the petitions in chambers and said that it had reviewed the judgements of Justice Ravindra Bhat (speaking for himself and Justice Hima Kohli) and Justice PS Narasimha, who constituted the majority, and found no errors.
Reason for Supreme Court Denies Requests to Review Same-Sex Marriage Decision
“We carefully considered the decisions delivered by Hon’ble Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat (Former Judge), speaking for himself, and Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli (Former Judge), together with the concurring point of view explained by one of us (Hon’ble Mr Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha), constituting the majority view. “We do not see a mistake on the face of the record,” the bench stated.
“We also conclude that the views expressed in both judgements are legal, and hence no interference is required. As a result, the review requests have been dismissed,” it stated.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is currently the Chief Justice of India, recused himself from hearing the review petitions in July 2024, requiring the formation of the bench.
Table of Contents
PS Narasimha is the only initial Supreme Bench member who has also served on the judiciary review Bench, as former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, and Hima Kohli have all retired.
In its October 2023 decision was rendered, the bench ruled that there was “no unqualified right” to marriage, with the exception of those recognised by law.
It had also advocated for the rights of the LGBTQIA++ community and disputed with the Centre’s claim, stating that queerness is “neither urban nor elitist”.
“Same-sex partnerships have been accepted since antiquity, not only for sexual purposes but also for emotional fulfilment. I mentioned certain Sufi traditions. I concur with the decision of the Chief Justice. It is not res integra for a constitutional court to preserve rights, and the court was driven by constitutional morality rather than social morality. “These unions are to be recognised as a union to provide partnership and love,” Justice Kaul stated.
you join our tazatimesnews Telegram Channel
you join our whatsapp channel
Next News Read – Hyundai Venue, Verna, and Grand i10 Nios lineups are updated with new variations and facilities
