The Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Thursday reserved judgment on a batch of petitions legal recognition of the same sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act on the touchstone of equality of right for LGBTQIA+ community with the heterogeneous couple marriage.

The five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha reserved the judgment on the conclusion of the hearing spread over 10 days starting on April 18, 2023.

“We are reserving the judgement,” said CJI Chandrachud upon the conclusion of rejoinder arguments by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for a portioner seeking declaration recognising same sex marriage.

The hearing saw the Central government strongly opposing the plea contending that it would have bearing on a large number of issues including adoption covered by different statutes. The Centre had even questioned the maintainability of the petitions seeking legal recognition of same sex marriage.

The bench while limiting the scope of the issue to the Special Marriage Act without touching upon other consequential issues including adoption, the constitution bench had on the first day of hearing – April 18 – had said that “It cannot decide everything before deciding anything” leaving other issues to follow in due course of time for their resolution.

However, the petitioners seeking declaration in favour of same sex marriage had argued that they want it under the Special Marriage Act without touching any personal law governing family ties amongst Hindus, Muslims, Christians and others.

The petitioners seeking recognition of same sex marriage have sought to enforce the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to marry any person of their choice and said that “the exercise of which ought to be insulated from the disdain of legislative and popular majorities.”

The petitioners, further, asserted their fundamental right to marry each other and prayed for appropriate directions from this Court allowing and enabling them to do so.

At the stage of the rejoinder arguments by the petitioners, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi had suggested via media suggesting the registration of an affidavit by the same sex couple of the decision to marry each other and the same can be used for satisfying other statutory requirements including insurance cover.

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) had focused its arguments on the welfare of the child and the requirement of a mother to fulfil it. NCPCR had said that the entire architecture of laws is from the perspective of the welfare of the child being paramount and adoption is not an alternative to biological birth in families of heterosexual couples.

Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan have opposed the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the country whereas Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur and Sikkim had sought more time to give their opinion on same-sex marriage issue.