Same-sex marriage verdict to be reviewed by new Supreme Court bench today

The petitioners have argued that the Supreme Court verdict, declining to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages, compelled gay couples to remain in the closet.

In Short

• Review pleas to be considered in the chambers of judges
• Bench reconstituted after retirement of Chief Justice Chandrachud
• In 2023, court declined to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages

A new five-judge bench of the Supreme Court will take up petitions on Thursday seeking a review of its 2023 verdict rejecting legal sanction to same-sex marriage. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, PS Narasimha and Dipankar Datta will consider the review pleas in the chambers and there won't be a hearing in the open court.

Last year in July, the petitioners sought a hearing in open courtroom considering the public interest involved in the issue. A new bench had to be reconstituted following the retirements of Justices SK Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kohli. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is now the Chief Justice, recused himself last year.

In their review pleas, the petitioners have argued that the Supreme Court verdict compelled gay couples to remain in the closet and lead dishonest lives.

In October 2023, a Constitution bench headed by then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud declined to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages. In a 3-2 verdict, the court also declined to allow civil unions for same-sex couples.

Justice Bhat wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Kaul, along with Chief Justice Chandrachud, gave the minority view. However, all the judges were unanimous in their opinion that it was not possible to tweak the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to allow same-sex marriage.

Maintaining that it didn't want to encroach on the legislative domain, the majority judgment said Parliament was the ideal forum to debate and pass laws on the question of conferring legal status to same-sex marriage.

In their minority judgment, then-Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul said they were in favour of extending civil union to same-sex couples.

A civil union differs from marriage. Granting 'civil union' status would have given same-sex couples specific rights and responsibilities that are normally enjoyed by married couples.