New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to allow a public hearing on petitions reviewing last year's ruling denying legal recognition to same-sex marriage.
In a setback for gay rights activists, a five-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on October 17 last year refused to give legal backing to same-sex marriage, saying that there was "no unconditional right" to marriage except those recognized by law.
The apex court, however, had made a strong call for the rights of queer people so that they do not face discrimination in accessing goods and services that are available to others, safe houses known as 'Garima Greh' in all districts to provide shelter to community members facing harassment and violence and dedicated hotline numbers they could use in case of problems.
A five-judge bench comprising the CJI and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, B V Nagarathna and P S Narasimha is scheduled to consider the pleas seeking review of the judgment in chambers on July 10.
On Tuesday, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and NK Kaul raised the issue and urged the CJI to hear the review petitions in a public hearing.
“I say that if these petitions can be heard in open court…” Kaul asked the court.
These are the constitutional court review matters listed in the chambers, the CJI told him.
According to practice, judges examine appeals for review in court.
In its ruling, the court held that transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the freedom and right to marry under existing legal provisions. It had said that the right to legal recognition of the right to union, similar to marriage or civil union, or to confer legal status on the relationship can only be achieved by "enacted law".
The five-judge constitutional bench headed by CJI Chandrachud had issued four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
The five judges were unanimous in refusing to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, noting that it was within the purview of Parliament to change the law to validate such a union.
While the CJI had written a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (now retired) had written a 17-page judgment in which he broadly agreed with Justice Chandrachud's views.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (now retired), author of an 89-page judgment for himself and Justice Hima Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions reached by the CJI, including the applicability of adoption rules for couples queer.
Justice PS Narasimha had said in his 13-page verdict that he completely agreed with the reasoning given and the conclusions arrived at by Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" phenomenon.
In his view, the CJI had recorded Attorney General Tushar Mehta's assurance that the Center will constitute a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of rights of same-sex couples in union. .
LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who had won a major legal battle in 2018 at the Supreme Court that decriminalized consensual gay sex, had submitted to the high court the validation of same-sex marriage and consequent reliefs such as the rights to adoption and enrollment as parents in schools. , opening bank accounts and taking advantage of inheritance and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners had urged the apex court to use its full power, "prestige and moral authority" to pressure society to recognize such a union that would ensure LGBTQIA++ lead a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
LGBTQIA++ means lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual and related people.
In a setback for gay rights activists, a five-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on October 17 last year refused to give legal backing to same-sex marriage, saying that there was "no unconditional right" to marriage except those recognized by law.
The apex court, however, had made a strong call for the rights of queer people so that they do not face discrimination in accessing goods and services that are available to others, safe houses known as 'Garima Greh' in all districts to provide shelter to community members facing harassment and violence and dedicated hotline numbers they could use in case of problems.
A five-judge bench comprising the CJI and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, B V Nagarathna and P S Narasimha is scheduled to consider the pleas seeking review of the judgment in chambers on July 10.
On Tuesday, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and NK Kaul raised the issue and urged the CJI to hear the review petitions in a public hearing.
“I say that if these petitions can be heard in open court…” Kaul asked the court.
These are the constitutional court review matters listed in the chambers, the CJI told him.
According to practice, judges examine appeals for review in court.
In its ruling, the court held that transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the freedom and right to marry under existing legal provisions. It had said that the right to legal recognition of the right to union, similar to marriage or civil union, or to confer legal status on the relationship can only be achieved by "enacted law".
The five-judge constitutional bench headed by CJI Chandrachud had issued four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
The five judges were unanimous in refusing to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, noting that it was within the purview of Parliament to change the law to validate such a union.
While the CJI had written a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (now retired) had written a 17-page judgment in which he broadly agreed with Justice Chandrachud's views.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (now retired), author of an 89-page judgment for himself and Justice Hima Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions reached by the CJI, including the applicability of adoption rules for couples queer.
Justice PS Narasimha had said in his 13-page verdict that he completely agreed with the reasoning given and the conclusions arrived at by Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" phenomenon.
In his view, the CJI had recorded Attorney General Tushar Mehta's assurance that the Center will constitute a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of rights of same-sex couples in union. .
LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who had won a major legal battle in 2018 at the Supreme Court that decriminalized consensual gay sex, had submitted to the high court the validation of same-sex marriage and consequent reliefs such as the rights to adoption and enrollment as parents in schools. , opening bank accounts and taking advantage of inheritance and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners had urged the apex court to use its full power, "prestige and moral authority" to pressure society to recognize such a union that would ensure LGBTQIA++ lead a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
LGBTQIA++ means lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual and related people.
