Supreme Court Declines Open Court Hearing for Same-Sex Marriage Review Petitions

CJI Chandrachud Cites Tradition of Reviewing Constitution Bench Judgments in Chambers

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, declined to grant an open court hearing for the review petition that challenged its earlier judgment, which did not legally recognize same-sex and queer marriage.

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud clarified that when a review is filed against a decision made by a constitution bench, the hearing takes place in chambers and not in an open court setting.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul earlier made an appeal before the CJI for an open court hearing of several petitions requesting a review of the Supreme Court's October 2023 decision refusing to legalize same-sex marriage. These review petitions are scheduled to be heard in chambers on Wednesday.

In response to the senior advocates' request for an open court hearing in the "public interest," the CJI had said that review petitions are considered in chambers, and a constitution bench will address the merits of the pleas.

The CJI emphasized that the decision to hear review petitions in open court is also made by judges in chambers, without the presence of lawyers.

Changing Bench Composition

The Supreme Court will reconsider its previous judgment on same-sex marriage, with two new judges replacing the recently retired Justices S.K. Kaul and S. Ravindra Bhat on the Constitution Bench. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.V. Nagarathna will join the bench to review the verdict.

In its October 17 ruling last year, the apex court said that it did not wish to overstep the boundaries of judicial power and encroach upon the legislative domain of the Parliament.

Petitioners' Arguments

According to the review petitions, the court's decision forces queer couples who desire the happiness of a genuine family to remain closeted and live inauthentic lives.

The petitions argue that "the judgment had acknowledged that queer partners suffer from the indignity of discrimination in their everyday lives, but denied them any judicial relief, choosing to leave the community at the mercy of government policy and legislative wisdom."

The court in last year's ruling argued that the Parliament is the most suitable forum for debating and passing laws on the issue of granting legal status to same-sex marriage.

Procedural Aspects of Review Petitions

Typically, a review petition is considered by the judges in their chambers and decided without an open court hearing. However, if the judges find merit in the review plea, they can allow an open court hearing and oral arguments.

In this case, the petitioners have demanded an open court hearing, arguing that the significance of the matter for the nation and society warrants a departure from the usual practice.

The CJI's response highlighted the procedural aspects of review petitions before a constitution bench, pointing out that any decision to list the matter for an open court hearing would require careful consideration by all the members of the five-judge bench.