Marriage Equality Case : Justice Sanjiv Khanna Recuses From Hearing Review Petitions In Supreme Court
In the latest development, today (on July 10), the hearing of petitions seeking review of the verdict refusing to recognize same-sex marriages was postponed as Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a member of a newly constituted bench, recused himself from the matter. A chamber hearing was scheduled for the consideration of these review petitions. It may be recalled that a new bench was constituted...
In the latest development, today (on July 10), the hearing of petitions seeking review of the verdict refusing to recognize same-sex marriages was postponed as Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a member of a newly constituted bench, recused himself from the matter.
A chamber hearing was scheduled for the consideration of these review petitions. It may be recalled that a new bench was constituted since two judges of the 5-judge bench that delivered the judgment—Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Ravindra Bhat—were retired.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BV Nagarathna replaced the retired members of the bench. The other judges are Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.
However, with the recusal of Justice Khanna, a new bench will have to be constituted before the Top Court starts hearing the matter.
The order passed in the review petitions is as follows :
"Circulate the review petitions before a bench of which one of us (Justice Sanjiv Khanna) is not a member.
The Registry is directed to circualte the Review Petitions before an appropriate bench, after taking directions on the administrative side"
Yesterday, the review petitioners requested the Supreme Court to have an open court hearing of the petition. The CJI, however, said that traditionally, review petitions happen only in chambers.
To provide a brief background, the Supreme Court on 17.10.2023 refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India, saying that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. However, all the judges on the bench agreed that the Union of India, as per its earlier statement, shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer union without legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage".
The Court also unanimously held that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion, or interference; but refrained from passing any directions to formally recognize such relationships as marriages.
CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul agreed to recognize the right of queer couples to form a civil union; however, the other three judges of the bench disagreed on this aspect.
Post that, several review petitions were filed, faulting the judgment for not affording any legal protection to queer couples despite acknowledging the discrimination faced by them. This amounts to abdication of the Court's duty to uphold and protect fundamental rights, they had argued.
It has also been argued that judgment suffers from "errors apparent on the face of the record" and is "self-contradictory and manifestly unjust". The Court recognises that the Petitioners' fundamental rights are being violated by the State through discrimination but fails to take the logical next step of prohibiting this discrimination.
Case Title : Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and another vs.Union of India | RP (c) 1866/2023 and connected cases