Supreme Court to review its judgment on January 09 on legalizing Queer Couple Marriage
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court is set to hear review petitions on January 9, 2025 relating to its previous judgment that denied legal recognition of queer marriages in India.
The review petitions will be considered by the bench comprising of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Suryakant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Dipankar Datta in chambers. This bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from the case in July 2024. Justice PS Narasimha remains the only member from the original bench that delivered the October 2023 judgment, as all other members, including the then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, and Hima Kohli, have retired.
The review petitions will be considered at 1:55 PM on January 9, 2025 according to the official cause list issued by the Registry of the Supreme Court. Prior to the recusal, the review bench included the retired CJI . DY Chandrachud and the present Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna, and PS Narasimha.
On October 17, 2023, the Supreme Court refused granting legal recognition to queer marriages, asserting that the matter should be addressed by the legislature. However, the Court did direct the Union of India to establish a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of individuals in queer unions that lack legal recognition as marriages. The bench also unanimously agreed that queer couples should have the right to cohabit without facing violence, coercion, or interference, but did not issue any formal directives to recognize such relationships as marriages.
While CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul supported the idea of recognizing civil unions for queer couples, the remaining three judges did not agree on this point.
Following this ruling, several review petitions were filed, criticizing the judgment for failing to provide legal protection to queer couples despite acknowledging the discrimination they face. The petitioners argued that the judgment amounted to a failure in the Court's duty to uphold fundamental rights. Additionally, they claimed the judgment contained "errors apparent on the face of the record" and was "self-contradictory and manifestly unjust." Despite recognizing the violation of petitioners' fundamental rights through discrimination, the Court did not take the necessary step of prohibiting such discrimination.
Case Title: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and Anr vs. Union of India
Case No : RP (C) 1866/2023 & Connected cases.
