A five judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and PS Narasimha on Wednesday, July 10, are scheduled to consider in-chambers the batch of pleas seeking review of its last year's judgment declining legal recognition to same-sex marriage. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to allow open court hearing of the pleas.
In a setback to gay rights activists, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice Chandrachud had on October 17 last year refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those that are recognised by law.
The Supreme Court, however, had made a strong pitch for the rights of queer people so they don't face discrimination in accessing goods and services that are 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 hotline numbers which they could use in case of trouble.
On Tuesday, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and NK Kaul mentioned the matter and urged the CJI to hear the review petitions in an open court. “I say that if these petitions can be heard in the open court...,” Kaul asked the court.
These are the Constitution bench review matters which are listed in chambers, Justice Chandrachud told him. As per the practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by judges.
What Supreme Court verdict said on same-sex marriage
In its judgment, the Supreme Court bench had held that transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions. It had said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship can be only done through "enacted law".
The five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud had delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such union.
