In their pursuit of justice, lawyer Utkarsh Saxena and his partner Ananya Koti have filed a significant review petition in response to the Supreme Court’s denial of legalizing same-sex marriages in the case of Supriyo v. Union of India. The petitioners express deep discontent with the court’s decision to withhold equal access to a pivotal social institution for queer couples, emphasizing its intrinsic importance and role as a gateway to other essential rights.
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
Previous Critique: A Call for Legal Protection
Before Saxena and Koti’s review petition, four petitioners (Udit Sood, Saatvic, Lakshmi Manoharan, and Gagandeep Paul) had already scrutinized the judgment in a prior review. They criticized the court for failing to afford legal protection to queer couples, despite acknowledging the discrimination they face. The petitioners argued that this amounted to the court abdicating its duty to uphold fundamental rights.
Also Read: India’s LGBTQ+ Community Fights For Equal Rights: A Battle For Recognition And Acceptance …Continues…
Discrimination and the “Right to Marry”:
The petitioners dissect the mischaracterization of their case, contending that the court failed to address the core question of whether queer couples can be excluded based on sexual orientation. The plea underscores the misunderstanding, asserting that the request was for equality, not the creation of a “new” legal regime.
On the Special Marriage Act:
A challenge is mounted against the court’s error in constraining the Special Marriage Act (SMA) to couples of different faiths. The petitioners advocate for a gender-neutral interpretation of the SMA, aligning with its purpose and underlying thrust.
Remedies: Criticism is directed at the court’s concession on unconstitutionally discriminatory SMA provisions. The plea argues against delegating the task of remedying discrimination to an executive committee, deeming it inconsistent with constitutional principles.
Adoption: The court’s denial of adoption rights to same-sex couples comes under scrutiny. The petitioners highlight the court’s acknowledgment of discrimination in the existing legal regime but its failure to act upon it. They stress that a distinction based on unconstitutional discrimination cannot be considered valid.
So proud of my PhD student Kotia and his partner Utkarsh who have been fighting for the legalization of same-sex marriage in front of the Indian Supreme Court. They lost the battle but will win the war.
— Ben Moll (@ben_moll) October 18, 2023
Huge congratulations on your engagement, Kotia and Utkarsh! https://t.co/CyRS1MSudN
Recap of Same-Sex Marriage Verdict: Defining Moments
On October 17, 2023, the bench unanimously declared the absence of a fundamental right to marry in India. The court rejected the authority to legislate on queer marriages, emphasizing the preservation of the separation of powers. A committee suggestion emerged to examine rights without legal marriage recognition.
Petitioners’ Call for an Open Court Hearing: A Step Toward Justice
The review petition, meticulously crafted by notable advocates including Abhinav Sekhri and Gautam Bhatia, was officially filed by Shadan Farasat. Scheduled for listing on November 28, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s agreement to consider an open-court hearing request adds another layer to this ongoing legal battle for same-sex marriage rights.
