Same-sex marriage: Supreme Court rejects review petitions on judgment, says 'no error'

Dismissing the review pleas, the bench said that after examining the judgments of Justice Ravindra Bhat (delivered with Justice Hima Kohli) and Justice P S Narasimha, which formed the majority, the bench found no errors in them.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a batch of petitions seeking review of its judgement by which it had denied to recognise same-sex marriage, noting that there was no "error apparent" and no "interference is warranted". 

A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta reviewed the petitions. After examining the judgments of Justice Ravindra Bhat (delivered with Justice Hima Kohli) and Justice P S Narasimha, which formed the majority, the bench found no errors 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. 

No unqualified right to marriage: SC

A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.

The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others; safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.

In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.

It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".

(With PTI inputs)