A review petition was filed against the Supreme Court's refusal to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The petition, filed in the Supreme Court by Udit Sood, one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case, describes the Supreme Court verdict as "self-contradictory and manifestly unjust".
"The discrimination faced by the queer community is acknowledged in the verdict but the cause of the discrimination is not removed. The legislative choices see same-sex couples as less than human by denying them equal rights," the review petition read.
It also said that the government's stand shows that the respondents believe LGBTQ people are "a problem".
"The majority judgement overlooks that marriage, at its core, is an enforceable social contract. The right to this 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," the petition further read.
It also added that the majority judgment “effectively compels young queer Indians to live in the closet and lead dishonest lives if they wish the joys of real family.”
The petition argued that the Supreme Court order “suffers errors apparent” as it “denies to queer Indians the right to marry, to choose a partner of one’s own choice, and to found family-all privileges that are otherwise celebrated upon heterosexual couples,” and are protected under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Further, it argues that the verdict recognizes that the Special marriage Act “facilitated creation of the social status of marriage” on one hand, but “overlooks that marriage is an enforceable Social Contract,” which is available to anyone capable of consenting.
The plea has also submitted that the declaration by the top court that there is “no fundamental right to marry” was a “chilling declaration” that would violate freedom of choice.
On October 17, the Supreme Court refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, saying it was up to Parliament to make laws to enable it. In a unanimous decision by the five-judge constitution bench, the bench said that there was no fundamental right to marry.
However, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul advocated for the recognition of same-sex partnership, and also pushed for anti-discrimination laws to safeguard the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals.
The five-judge bench, however, did not agree on adoption, civil union and recognition to queer couples. It ruled 3:2 against adoption in four separate judgements.
The Supreme Court also directed the government to constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer union, without legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage".
