On Thursday, Senior Counsel and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi urgently approached the Supreme Court, requesting an open court hearing for the review petitions challenging the top court’s verdict in the same-sex marriage case.
Rohatgi addressed a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, emphasizing that the review petitions should be heard in an open court. He pointed out that despite unanimous agreement among the judges on the Constitution bench that the denial of the right to marriage for individuals of the same gender amounted to discrimination, relief had been denied.
“All judges agree that there is discrimination… If there is discrimination then there has to be a remedy. Lives of a large number of people depend. We have urged for an open court hearing. It is to be listed on November 28. We are seeking an open court hearing,” he stated.
CJI Chandrachud responded by expressing that the request would be examined, and a decision would be made.
“We will look at it and decide,” stated the CJI.
Typically, review petitions are heard in chambers without oral arguments from lawyers. However, in exceptional cases and matters involving death penalty, they may be heard in an open court.
On October 17, a Constitution Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha ruled against recognizing same-sex marriages. The Court asserted that current laws do not acknowledge the right to marry or the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, leaving the decision to Parliament to enact laws for these rights.
The Court also held that the law does not recognize the rights of same-sex couples to adopt children. The majority opinion, delivered by Justices Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha, unanimously stated that there is no unqualified right to marriage, and same-sex couples cannot claim it as a fundamental right.
While CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul dissented, they ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to recognize their relationships as civil unions and can claim consequential benefits. They also maintained that such couples have the right to adopt children and struck down adoption regulations preventing the same.