The story so far: The Supreme Court on November 23 agreed to consider a request for an open court hearing of petitions seeking a review of its judgment refusing to legalise same-sex marriage. In October, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously observed that there exists no fundamental right to marry and that judicial interference in this regard would impinge upon the domain of the legislature by violating the doctrine of separation of powers. However, the minority verdict of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that constitutional authorities should carve out a regulatory framework to recognise the civil union of adults in a same-sex relationship.
The review petition faults the verdict for failing to afford any legal protection to queer couples despite acknowledging the discrimination faced by them. It also contends that the verdict suffers from ‘errors apparent on the face of the record’ and is ‘self-contradictory and manifestly unjust’.
In light of this development, The Hindu decodes the ambit of review petitions, why they are not heard in open court, and whether there exists any remedy beyond this jurisdiction.
