Live
- 3 including 2 women held in murder case
- SP slams UP govt, calls it orchestrated
- Shot In The Arm For Tribals… Girijan Coop Corpn Ropes In City Firm To Digitalise Petrol Bunks
- Complete failure of UP govt: Congress
- ‘Excavation rumour sparked violence, SDM, CO responsible’
- Cinematic legacy celebrated at SV University
- No permission needed for buildings up to 15 metres
- Do you support caste census? Which one will you prefer caste census or skill census?
- GHMC Commissioner attends Prajavani, receives 126 applications
- 6 injured as lift crashes in Bahadurpura apartment
Review plea filed against same-sex marriage verdict in Supreme Court seeks open court hearing
Supreme Court of India
The petitioners demanding marriage equality rights have sought an open court hearing of the review petition filed against the Supreme Court Constitution Bench's recent ruling refusing to grant any legal recognition to same-sex couples.
New Delhi: The petitioners demanding marriage equality rights have sought an open court hearing of the review petition filed against the Supreme Court Constitution Bench's recent ruling refusing to grant any legal recognition to same-sex couples.
The matter was mentioned by senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, who appeared on petitioners’ behalf, before a bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud on Thursday.
Rohtagi said the review plea coming up for hearing on November 28 should not be deleted and said that the matter be heard in open court.
At this, CJI Chandrachud said that he has not looked into the petitions yet and the court will decide on the question of open court hearing after going through the contents of the review pleas.
Generally, review petitions are tested on very narrow grounds like mistakes of law, error apparent on face of record, etc., and are often dismissed in chambers and are rarely given open court hearings.
The review petition, filed under Article 137 of the Constitution against the decision rendered on October 17, says that impugned judgment is “self-contradictory and manifestly unjust”.
The majority judgment is facially erroneous because it finds that the government is violating the petitioners' fundamental rights through discrimination and yet fails to enjoin the discrimination, it said.
In its verdict delivered on October 17, a 5-judge bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had declined to strike down or read into gender neutral "person" in place of "male" and "female" existing under the Special Marriage Act.
The top court of the country had left it to the legislature to take a call on enacting the marriage equality law. All five judges of the Constitution Bench had unanimously agreed that there exists no unqualified right to marriage and accepted the Centre’s proposal that a committee to be headed by the Cabinet Secretary will be set up to examine what administrative steps could be taken to address basic social benefit concerns relating to same-sex couples.
However, it had asked the Union and state governments to ensure that the LGBTQ+ community is not discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and queer individuals are not refused access to any goods or services.
