New Delhi:
Noting that there was no “error apparent” and no “interference is warranted”, the Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking a review of its October 2023 judgment in which it refused to grant legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
Having refused an open hearing on the petitions earlier, a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Datta considered the petitions in chambers and said that it had gone through the judgments of Justice Ravindra Bhat (speaking for himself and Justice Hima Kohli), and Justice PS Narasimha – which constituted the majority – and found no error in them.
“We have carefully gone through the judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat (Former Judge) speaking for himself and for Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli (Former Judge) as well as the concurring opinion expressed by one of us (Hon’ble Mr Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha), constituting majority view. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record,” the bench said.
“We further find that the view expressed in both the judgments is in accordance with the law and, as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed,” it added.
The bench hearing the review petitions was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is now the Chief Justice of India, recused from hearing them in July 2024.
PS Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench that had delivered the original verdict as former Chief Justice Of India DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
In the October 2023 verdict, the bench had said there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
It had also, however, pushed for the rights of LGBTQIA++ community and disagreed with the Centre’s contention, saying that queerness is “neither urban nor elitist”.
“Same-sex relationships have been recognised from antiquity, not just for sexual activities but as relationships for emotional fulfilment. I have referred to certain Sufi traditions. I agree with the judgment of the Chief Justice. It is not res integra for a constitutional court to uphold the rights and the court has been guided by the constitutional morality and not social morality. These unions are to be recognised as a union to give partnership and love,” Justice Kaul had said.
