A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against its decision to deny legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The petition, submitted by Udit Sood, one of the petitioners in the original same-sex marriage case, criticizes the Supreme Court’s verdict as “self-contradictory and manifestly unjust.”
Review Petition Filed Challenging Supreme Court’s Refusal to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages
The review petition points out that while the verdict acknowledges the discrimination faced by the queer community, it does not address the root causes of this discrimination. It argues that legislative choices that deny equal rights to same-sex couples essentially perceive them as lesser than human.
Moreover, the petition highlights the perception of the government and respondents that LGBTQ individuals are viewed as a “problem.” It contends that the majority judgment fails to recognize that marriage is, at its core, an enforceable social contract that should be available to anyone capable of consenting. It emphasizes that no single group should define the meaning of “marriage” for others.
It argues that these rights are protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India
The review petition further contends that the Supreme Court’s order suffers from “errors apparent” as it denies queer Indians the right to marry, choose their own partners, and establish families, privileges celebrated by heterosexual couples. It argues that these rights are protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petition also challenges the Supreme Court’s declaration that there is “no fundamental right to marry” as a “chilling declaration” that violates freedom of choice.
On October 17, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that legal recognition of same-sex marriages was a matter for Parliament to legislate on. While some judges, including Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, advocated for recognizing same-sex partnerships and anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBTQIA+ individuals’ rights, the five-judge bench did not reach a consensus on adoption, civil unions, and recognition for queer couples, ruling 3:2 against adoption in separate judgments.
The Supreme Court also directed the government to establish a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of individuals in queer unions, even without legal recognition of their relationships as “marriages.”