'I don't expect court...': Activist says review petition on India SC's same-sex marriage verdict will fail

A petition has been submitted to the Indian Supreme Court requesting a review of its decision on October 17 that failed to legally recognise same-sex marriages, leaving many LGBTQ rights activists deeply disappointed. The petition argued that the majority judgment recognised discrimination against same-sex couples but still failed to take action to end that discrimination.

Naz Foundation's Anjali Gopalan, who has been working with the LGBTQ community, told WION, "I don't expect the court to go back on its own judgment. That happens very rarely."

The review petition filed by Udit Sood read, "The Petitioners respectfully submit that this Court ought to review and correct its decision in... because the impugned judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and is self-contradictory and manifestly unjust."

"With respect, the majority judgment neuters this Court's jurisdiction, holding that while 'recognition' of discrimination and violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights 'is this court's obligation, falling within its remit', separation of powers prohibits this court from enjoining the discrimination or otherwise protecting those fundamental rights," the petition added.

This comes after the landmark 3-2 judgment where the apex court decided not to legalise same-sex marriage and asked the union government to form a committee to examine the rights which can be given to LGBTQ couples.

The review petition also argued that the court must be responsible for ensuring that people's fundamental rights are upheld.

While hinting at an earlier verdict from 1963, the petition said, "Our constitution primarily tasks this court-not the respondents (Centre and others) - with upholding fundamental rights. 'This Court has no more important function than to preserve the inviolable fundamental rights of the people'."

The petition said that the majority judgment is a self-contradictory interpretation of 'marriage' as the Special Marriage Act confers marriage status while denying the right to same-sex marriage.

While the court rejected the legal validation of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, it left room for Parliament to change the law in this regard.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud while issuing a series of directions said that we must ensure non-discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community and raise public awareness about queer identity.

The Centre committed to establishing a committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Secretary to comprehensively examine the factors related to LGBTQ+ rights.

The petitioners previously achieved a significant victory in 2018 when the Supreme Court decriminalised consensual same sex, however they also sought legalisation of same-sex marriages and associated rights, including adoption.

(With inputs from agencies)