New Delhi:

Noting that there was no “error apparent” and no “interference is warranted”, the Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking a review of its October 2023 judgment in which it refused to grant legal sanction to same-sex marriage. 

Having refused an open hearing on the petitions earlier, a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha and Dipankar Datta considered the petitions in chambers and said that it had gone through the judgments of Justice Ravindra Bhat (speaking for himself and Justice Hima Kohli), and Justice PS Narasimha – which constituted the majority – and found no error in them. 

“We have carefully gone through the judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat (Former Judge) speaking for himself and for Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli (Former Judge) as well as the concurring opinion expressed by one of us (Hon’ble Mr Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha), constituting majority view. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record,” the bench said.

“We further find that the view expressed in both the judgments is in accordance with the law and, as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed,” it added.

The bench hearing the review petitions was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is now the Chief Justice of India, recused from hearing them in July 2024.

PS Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench that had delivered the original verdict – former Chief Justice Of India DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired – who was also on the review bench.

In the October 2023 verdict, the bench had said there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.

It had also, however, pushed for the rights of LGBTQIA++ community and disagreed with the Centre’s contention, saying that queerness is “neither urban nor elitist”.

“Same-sex relationships have been recognised from antiquity, not just for sexual activities but as relationships for emotional fulfilment. I have referred to certain Sufi traditions. I agree with the judgment of the Chief Justice. It is not res integra for a constitutional court to uphold the rights and the court has been guided by the constitutional morality and not social morality. These unions are to be recognised as a union to give partnership and love,” Justice Kaul had said. 

New Delhi:

Two women married in Uttar Pradesh’s Kannauj, but only after one of them changed her gender to avoid societal hurdles and defamation.

Ranu and Jyoti got married with great pomp and their families’ blessings in Kannauj’s Sadar Kotwali, after the former spent around Rs 7 lakh to change her gender.

Shivangi, the daughter of Indra Gupta, met Jyoti at her father’s jewellery shop. Jyoti asked her for a shop on rent to open a beauty parlour, after which the latter gave a room on rent to the former. The duo grew closer and eventually decided to get married as two women.

However, the family’s fear of social disgrace over a same-sex marriage led the couple to decide that Shivangi will undergo a gender change. She consulted doctors in Lucknow and Delhi and then underwent gender change operations, after which she changed her named from Shivangi to Ranu.

Even as the fourth and final operation in the gender change process remains pending, the couple got their families’ blessings and tied the knot on November 25.

Hong Kong’s top court has made a landmark ruling in favour of same-sex married couples, upholding their rights to subsidised housing benefits and equal inheritance.

This decision marks a significant victory for the LGBTQ+ community in Hong Kong, who have traditionally faced discrimination and fewer rights compared to heterosexual couples.

According to the Associated Press, Court of Final Appeal’s unanimous decision dismissed the government’s appeals, ending years-long legal battles over the differential treatment of same-sex couples married overseas.

Government lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk claimed that Hong Kong’s housing policy aimed to promote “procreation” among heterosexual couples. 

However, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung disagreed, stating that excluding same-sex couples from public rental flats and subsidised flats under the Home Ownership Scheme was unjustifiable.

“[For] needy same-sex married couples who cannot afford private rental accommodation, the [government’s] exclusionary policy could well mean depriving them of any realistic opportunity of sharing family life under the same roof at all,” Cheung said.

The ruling also declared that disputed provisions in inheritance laws are “discriminatory and unconstitutional.” Hong Kong’s government respects the court’s decision and will study the judgments to determine next steps.

Currently, Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriage, but the city does recognise same-sex marriage for certain purposes, such as taxation and civil service benefits. 

This ruling is a significant step towards equality, but activists remain hopeful that Hong Kong will eventually legalise same-sex marriage, following in the footsteps of Taiwan and Thailand.

Nick Infinger, who was the first to launch a judicial review against the Housing Authority in 2018, told reporters that the rulings “acknowledged same-sex couples can love each other and deserve to live together.”

“This is not only fighting for me and for my partner, but this is fighting for all the same-sex couples in Hong Kong,” he added.

This landmark ruling is a significant milestone in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in Hong Kong, and activists hope it will inspire further progress towards equality.
 

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 10 a batch of pleas seeking review of its last year’s judgement which refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage.

According to the cause list of July 10 uploaded on the top court website, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud would consider in-chamber the pleas seeking review of the October 17 last year verdict.

As per the practice, the review pleas are considered in-chamber by five-judge benches.

Besides the CJI, the other members of the bench will be Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and PS Narasimha.

In a setback to gay rights activists, the top court had on October 17 last year refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those that are recognised by law.

The top court, however, had made a strong pitch for the rights of queer people so they don’t face discrimination in accessing goods and services that are available to others, safe houses known as ‘Garima Greh’ in all districts to provide shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence and dedicated hotline numbers which they could use in case of trouble.

Holding that transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions, the top court had said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship can be only done through “enacted law”.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud had delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.

All the five judges were unanimous in refusing to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and had observed it was within Parliament’s ambit to change the law for validating such union.

While the CJI had written a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (since retired) had penned a 17-page judgement in which he broadly agreed with Justice Chandrachud’s views.

Justice S Ravindra Bhat (since retired), who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Hima Kohli, had disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the CJI including on applicability of adoption rules for queer couples.

Justice PS Narasimha had said in his 13-page verdict that he was in complete agreement with the reasoning given and conclusions arrived at by Justice Bhat.

The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness is a natural phenomenon and not “urban or elite” occurrence.

In his judgement, the CJI had recorded the assurance by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Centre will constitute a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for the purpose of defining and elucidating the scope of entitlements of queer couples who are in union.

The LGBTQIA rights activists, who had won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court which decriminalised consensual gay sex, had moved the top court seeking validation of same-sex marriage and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrollment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits. Some of the petitioners had urged the top court to use its plenary power, “prestige and moral authority” to push the society to acknowledge such a union which would ensure LGBTQIA lead a “dignified” life like heterosexuals.

LGBTQIA+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and allied persons.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

A picture showing Vorawan “Beaut” Ramwan and Anticha “An” Sangchai wearing wedding dresses in a Pride parade is seen at their house during an interview with Reuters. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Thailand’s Senate passed the final reading of a marriage equality law on June 18 , paving the way for it to become the first country in Southeast Asia to recognise same-sex couples.

The bill comes after more than two decades of effort from activists and politicians, after previous drafts did not reach parliament.

With the support of nearly all lawmakers in the Upper House, the law next needs royal approval. It will come into force 120 days after it is published in the royal gazette.

LGBT advocates called the move a “monumental step forward,” as Thailand would be the first nation in Southeast Asia to enact marriage equality legislation and the third territory in Asia, after Nepal and Taiwan.

“We are very proud to make history,” said Plaifah Kyoka Shodladd, member of a parliamentary committee on same-sex marriage.

“Today love triumphed prejudice,after fighting for more than 20 years, today we can say that this country has marriage equality.”

Lawmakers and activists were seen celebrating in Thailand’s parliament, waving rainbow flags and smiling, with some raising their fists in solidarity with the LGBT community.

Thailand, one of Asia’s most popular tourist destinations, is already known for its vibrant LGBT culture and tolerance.

At the start of June, thousands of revellers and activists paraded through the streets of Bangkok and were joined by Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, who wore a rainbow shirt to celebrate Pride Month.

“This would underscore Thailand’s leadership in the region in promoting human rights and gender equality,” the Civil Society Commission of marriage equality, activists and LGBTQI couples said in a statement.

Image used for representational purpose only.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Iraq’s parliament passed a bill on April 27 criminalising same-sex relations, which will receive a sentence of up to 15 years in prison, in a move rights groups condemned as an “attack on human rights”.

Transgender people will be sentenced to three years’ jail under the amendments to a 1988 anti-prostitution law, which were adopted during a session attended by 170 out of 329 lawmakers.

A previous draft had proposed capital punishment for same-sex relations, in what campaigners had called a “dangerous” escalation.

The new amendments enable courts to sentence people engaging in same-sex relations to between 10 to 15 years in prison, according to the document seen by AFP, in the country where gay and transgender people already face frequent attacks and discrimination.

They also set a minimum seven-year prison term for “promoting” same-sex relations and a sentence ranging from one to three years for men who “intentionally” act like women.

The amended law makes “biological sex change based on personal desire and inclination” a crime and punishes transgender people and doctors who perform gender-affirming surgery with up to three years in prison.

Homosexuality is taboo in Iraq’s conservative society, however there had not previously been a law that explicitly punished same-sex relations.

Members of Iraq’s LGBTQ community have been prosecuted for sodomy or under vague morality and anti-prostitution clauses in Iraq’s penal code.

“Iraq has effectively codified in law the discrimination and violence members of the LGBTI community have been subjected to with absolute impunity for years,” said Amnesty International’s Iraq researcher Razaw Salihy.

“The amendments concerning LGBTI rights are a violation of fundamental human rights and put at risk Iraqis whose lives are already hounded daily,” Ms. Salihy added.

The amendments also ban organisations that “promote” homosexuality and punish “wife swapping” with a prison sentence of 10 to 15 years.

“The law serves as a preventive measure to protect society from such acts,” lawmaker Raed al-Maliki, who advanced the amendments, told AFP.

He said passing the new amendment was postponed until after Iraqi Prime Minister Mohamed Shia al-Sudani’s visit to the United States earlier this month.

The United States and the European Union oppose the law and “we didn’t want to impact the visit,” he said.

“It is an internal matter and we do not accept any interference in Iraqi affairs.”

The US State Department is “deeply concerned” about the legislation, spokesman Matt Miller said Saturday, adding that the law threatens those most at risk in Iraqi society and “undermines the government’s political and economic reform efforts.”

LGBTQ Iraqis have been forced into the shadows, often targeted with “kidnappings, rapes, torture and murders” that go unpunished, according to a 2022 report by Human Rights Watch and the IraQueer non-governmental organisation.

Iraqi politicians and social media users have increasingly resorted to anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, which stokes further fear among members of the community.

Human Rights Watch’s Iraq researcher Sarah Sanbar said the new law change “is a horrific development and an attack on human rights”.

“Rather than focusing on enacting laws that would benefit Iraqis — like passing the draft domestic violence law or draft child protection law — Iraq is choosing to codify discrimination against LGBT people,” she said.

Thai LGBT community participates in Gay Freedom Day Parade in Bangkok. File.
| Photo Credit: REUTERS

Thailand’s lower house of parliament on March 26 passed a marriage equality bill at the final reading, in a landmark step that moves the country closer to becoming the third territory in Asia to legalise same-sex unions.

The bill now requires approval from the Senate and endorsement from the king before it becomes law. It had the support of all of Thailand’s major parties and was passed by 400 of the 415 lawmakers present, with 10 voting against it.

“We did this for all Thai people to reduce disparity in society and start creating equality,” Danuphorn Punnakanta, chairman of the parliamentary committee on the draft bill, told lawmakers ahead of the reading.

“I want to invite you all to make history.”

The passing of the bill marks a significant step towards cementing Thailand’s position as one of Asia’s most liberal societies on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, with openness and free-wheeling attitudes coexisting with traditional, conservative Buddhist values.

Thailand has long been a draw for same-sex couples, with a vibrant LGBT social scene for locals and expatriates, and targeted campaigns to attract LGBT travellers.

The bill could take effect within 120 days of royal approval. Thailand would follow Taiwan and Nepal in becoming the first places in Asia to legalise same-sex unions.

The legislation has been more than a decade in the making, with delays due to political upheaval and disagreement on what approaches to take and what should be included in the bill.

The Constitutional Court had in 2020 ruled Thailand’s current marriage law, which only recognises heterosexual couples, was constitutional, recommending legislation be expanded to ensure rights of other genders.

Parliament in December approved four different draft bills on same-sex marriage in the first reading and tasked a committee to consolidate those into a single draft.

New Delhi:

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a review of its October 17 verdict in which it had refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage. The petition states that the majority judgment acknowledged discrimination against queer couples but “turned them away with best wishes for the future”.

The review peition by one of the petitioners, Udit Sood, has been filed with the Supreme Court registry.

“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,” the review plea said.

It added that the majority judgment led by Justice S Ravindra Bhat, since retired, is “facially erroneous because it finds that the respondents (Centre and others) are violating the petitioners’ fundamental rights through discrimination” but fails to end that discrimination.

On the majority view of Justices Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, the review petition said that they neutered the top court’s jurisdiction.

“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 said.

It said there was an error apparent on the face of the record and an abdication of the duty entrusted to this court by the Constitution.

The petiton further said “to find that the petitioners are enduring discrimination, but then turn them away with best wishes for the future, conforms neither with this court’s constitutional obligation towards queer Indians nor with the separation of powers contemplated in the Constitution.”

It added, “The majority judgment warrants review because it summarily disregards the foregoing authority to make the chilling declaration that the Constitution of India guarantees no fundamental right to marry, found a family, or form a civil union.”

The petition said the majority judgment is also self-contradictory in its understanding of ‘marriage’.

“It acknowledges that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) confers the ‘status’ of marriage, observing that the Act ‘in fact created social status or facilitated the status of individuals in private fields’ and that the Parliament ‘has intervened and facilitated creation of social status (marriage) through SMA’,” the plea 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’,” it said, referring to a 1963 verdict.

A five-judge constitution bench had, on October 17, refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those that are recognised by law.

The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for gay marriages.

All the five judges were unanimous in refusing to give legal backing to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it is within Parliament’s ambit to change the law for validating such union.

However, by a majority of 3:2, the top court held that the queer couples do not have the right of adoption.

In his verdict, the CJI passed a slew of directions to the Centre, states and Union Territories to ensure that the queer community is not discriminated against because of their gender identity or sexual orientation and also to take steps to sensitise the public about queer identity, including that it is natural and not a mental disorder.

Justice S Ravindra Bhat, since retired, who authored an 89-page judgment for himself and Justice Hima Kohli, had disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the CJI including on the applicability of adoption rules for queer couples and according recognition of right to civil union.

Justice PS Narasimha, in a separate verdict, had concurred with the views of Justice Bhat.

Referring to the statement made by the Centre during the hearing on the matter, Justice Bhat had said “…the Union shall set up a high-powered committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Secretary, to undertake a comprehensive examination of all relevant factors, especially including those outlined above. In the conduct of such exercise, the concerned representatives of all stakeholders, and views of all States and Union Territories shall be taken into account”.

In his judgment, the CJI also recorded the assurance by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Centre would constitute a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for the purpose of defining and elucidating the scope of the entitlements of queer couples who are in union.

The petitioners, who had won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court which decriminalised consensual gay sex, had moved the Supreme Court seeking validation of same-sex marriage and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

LGTBQ activist and petitioner for same sex-marriages Shivangi Sharma speaks with the media at the courtyard of India’s Supreme Court in New Delhi on October 17, 2023.
| Photo Credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap

Though the Supreme Court has refused to legalise same-sex marriage, the Constitution Bench judgment is a formidable step to silence hostile voices who claim that homosexuality and gender queerness are un-Indian.

“It is not queerness which is of foreign origin but the many shades of prejudice in India which are remnants of a colonial past,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud observed.

The judgment bells the cat on how atypical gender identity or sexual orientation is still considered alien, urban and elite – a view put forward in court even by the Union government during the arguments of the same-sex marriage case. The Constitution Bench’s comments highlighting societal and even state discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation comes five years after the apex court decriminalised homosexuality.

Why did the Supreme Court not allow same-sex marriage? | Explained 

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul accepted non-heterosexual relationships as part of the “pluralistic social fabric” and an “integral part of Indian culture”.

All the five judges on the Bench agreed that queerness was not a phenomenon limited to the few and English-speaking urban rich. Expressions of queerness are more visible in urban centres as cities afford a degree of anonymity and access to resources, the Chief Justice reasoned. Queerness is not urban or elite. Persons of any geographic location or background may be queer, the court said in one voice.

Chief Justice Chandrachud delved into the notion “homosexuality or gender queerness is not native to India”. He said to deflate this prejudice, one has to define the term ‘Indian’. The Chief Justice did so by recording that “a thing, an occurrence, or a practice is ‘Indian’ when it is present in India, takes place here, or is practised by Indian citizens. Something which is Indian could be present from time immemorial or it could be a recent development… Sexual and gender minorities are as Indian as their fellow citizens who are cisgender and heterosexual”.

The Chief Justice said the nation and its constitutional authorities should not shrug off the rising call for equality from within the LGBTQIA community. Their demand to legalise same-sex marriage should not be dismissed as a copycat idea borrowed from abroad, he noted.

Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriages | Explained 

“The recent visibility of queerness is not an assertion of an entirely novel identity but the reassertion of an age-old one… An environment has been fostered which is conducive to queer persons expressing themselves without the fear of opprobrium,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed.

He said the British brought not only their laws but also their morality to India. He referred to how transgender persons were referred to as “eunuchs” in the Criminal Tribes Act and included in the category of “habitual offenders”.

The Act heaped “enormous indignity” on trans-persons by permitting the government to medically examine them, penalising them for dressing “like a woman” or playing music or dancing and had even rendered their will invalid.

New Delhi:

A prominent gay couple expressed their disappointment over the Supreme Court setback in the same-sex marriage matter, but vowed to “fight another day”.

Writer Ananya Kotia and lawyer Utkarsh Saxena exchanged rings in front of the Supreme Court today and announced their engagement.

The Supreme Court yesterday stopped short of legalising marriage equality, but stressed that an individual’s right to enter into a union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation. The five-judge bench came up with four judgments, differing primarily on the question of adoption rights for queer couples.

The judges asked the centre to proceed with the formation of a committee to address practical concerns of same-sex couples, such as getting ration cards, pension, gratuity and succession issues.

In a post on X today, Ananya Kotia said the “legal loss” they have suffered is in the past tense, and indicated they will not give up.

“Yesterday hurt. Today, Utkarsh Saxena and I went back to the court that denied our rights, and exchanged rings. So this week wasn’t about a legal loss, but our engagement. We’ll return to fight another day,” Ananya Kotia said in the post.

The post has a photo showing the gay couple exchanging rings in a garden, with the dome of the Supreme Court building in the background.

Yesterday hurt. Today, @utkarsh__saxena and I went back to the court that denied our rights, and exchanged rings. So this week wasn’t about a legal loss, but our engagement. We’ll return to fight another day. pic.twitter.com/ALJFIhgQ5I

— Kotia (@AnanyaKotia) October 18, 2023

The centre had on May 3 told the court that it plans to form a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to explore administrative solution to problems faced by same-sex couples without delving into the marriage equality question.

The bench gave a three-two judgment on the question of adoption rights. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul recognised the right of queer couples to adopt, while Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli disagreed.

“There is a degree of agreement and a degree of disagreement on how far we have to go. I have dealt with the issue of judicial review and separation of powers,” Justice Chandrachud said.

Disagreeing with the centre’s argument that marriage equality is an urban, elite concept, the Chief Justice said, “Queerness is not urban elite. Homosexuality or queerness is not an urban concept or restricted to the upper classes of the society.”

Justice Bhat said the court cannot create a legal framework for queer couples and it is for the legislature to do as there are several aspects to be taken into consideration.

On the issue of adoption, Justice Bhat said they disagree with the Chief Justice on the right of queer couples to adopt. “We voice certain concerns. This is not to say that unmarried or non-heterosexual couples can’t be good parents… given the objective of section 57, the State as parens patriae has to explore all areas and to ensure all benefits reach the children at large in need of stable homes.”