The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi denied permission on Tuesday for the Public to hear the matter in open court. Request for review of last year’s review judge Deny legal recognition of same-sex marriage. In a setback to gay rights campaigners, five judges Constitutional Court had already refused to recognize same sex marriage by other than the lawfully recognized institution since marriage without rule is “no absolute right”.
However, the Supreme Court heavily protected homosexuals and lesbians against discrimination with ‘Safe Houses’ where they have access to goods and services available to others. Garima Gray Provide community safe houses throughout each district for members facing harassment and violence, along with dedicated hotlines for use in emergencies.
A five-judge bench consisting of CJI & Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and PS Narasimha would take up this plea seeking the recall of this verdict in a division bench on July 10.
Senior lawyers Abhishek Singhvi and NK Kaul brought up this issue on Tuesday before the CJI requesting him to listen the Review Petition in Open Court.
“Can these petitions not be heard in open court…” Kaur asked.
These are matters that have been listed by the House for review by Constitutional Bench according to him,” said Chief Justice Chandrachud
The judge hears them alone,” as per convention.
Transgender men or women in heterosexual relationships have freedom and rights to marry as per current laws. Legal recognition could only be achieved through “enactment of law” adding that it should either be like or equivalent marriage between two people or confer legal status upon such a relationship.
Five Judge Constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud gave four judgments separately on 21 different pleas supporting legalization of homosexual marriages under law.
All five judges unanimously refused legalizing same sex marriages under Special Marriage Act while stating that Parliament may amend law providing validation for such unions.
The CJI in his 247-page judgment alone while Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (retd.) in a 17-page judgment generally concurred with Chand The opinion of Justice Lachud.
Justice S Ravindra Bhat (retd) who wrote an 89-page judgment for himself and Justice Hima Kohli, differed on some of the conclusions reached by the CJI including whether adoption rules should apply to queer couples.
In his 13-page judgment, PS Narasimha J said I completely agree with the reasoning given and conclusions reached by Bhat J.
The judges unanimously agreed that queerness is not a “urban or elite” matter but it is naturalness.
LGBTQIA++ rights activists won a big legal battle in 2018 when same-sex sex was decriminalized at the Supreme Court. They have now approached the Supreme Court of India seeking recognition for their marriages and all connected benefits such as adoption, enrolling as parents, opening bank accounts/insurance policies etc.
Some of those requesting the Supreme Court to use its full force, “respect and moral superiority” argued that it should strive for social acceptance of such relationships so as to have LGBTQIA++ members living a ‘respectable’ existence typical of heterosexuals.
LGBTQIA++ is an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, bisexual, pansexual, intersex, asexual and allied.
