The 20 petitions filed before Supreme Court seeking recognition of same-sex marriage

From April 18 onwards, the Supreme Court of India will begin hearing a case that could well alter the contours of matrimony as we know it. .A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud will commence hearing a batch of petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in India.The batch of petitions argue that the right to marry a person of one’s choice - as has been upheld by the apex court on several occasions - should extend to LGBTQIA+ citizens as well..The Central government, on its part, has staunchly opposed the petitions. It has questioned the very maintainablity of the pleas. It has argued, among other things, that the petitions represent "mere urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance" and that the legislature will have to consider broader views..Here is a brief look at the 20 petitions which would be heard by the Constitution Bench..DOWNLOAD all 20 petitions here.1. Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Priya PuriBrief: The petitioners argue that non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the right of the petitioners under Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners stated that they got married in a cultural fashion along with the participation of their parents. .2. Abhijit Iyer Mitra vs Union of IndiaLawyers: Raghav Awasthi, Mukesh Sharma, Namit SaxenaBrief: The plea states that it is against the Constitutional mandate of non-arbitrariness if the said right is not extended to homosexuals, apart from heterosexual couples. .3. Aditi Anand vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Malak Manish BhattBrief: The plea is filed by Aditi and Susan, who have been in a committed relationship for over seven years. The plea has assailed the Special Marriage Act for being violative of the Constitution since it differentiates between same-sex couples and similarly placed opposite sex couples. .4. Amburi Roy vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Dr Anindita PujariBrief: This plea is by two adult women who are in a relationship since 2007. They solemnised their marriage in Denmark in 2022. They had to leave India in 2021 as the legal environment to live here as a married couple was not possible. The petitioners now wish to register their marriage under Section 17 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. However, Section 17(2) read with Section 4(c) of the Act only recognises marriage between a man and a woman. .5. Dr Kavita Arora vs Union of IndiaLawyers: Arundhati Katju and Surabhi DharBrief: The petitioners are 47 and 36 years old. They have been a couple for 8 years. One of the parties was married when they both met, and eventually divorced her partner to be in a same-sex relationship. The petitioners have now sought to be embraced by the Constitution and the law in terms of marriage..6. Harish Iyer vs Union of IndiaLawyers: Kailas Bajirao Autade, Shivam Singh and Mugdha Pande.Brief: The petitioner, a prominent equal rights activist, is desirous of a different interpretation of the Special Marriage Act so he can marry a person of his liking..7. Joydeep Sengupta vs Union of IndiaLawyers: Karuna Nundy, Ruchira Goel, Utsav Mukherjee, Ragini Nagpal and Abhay ChitravanshiBrief: Apart from seeking recognition of same-sex marriage, the plea seeks a declaration that a spouse of foreign origin of an Indian citizen or Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder is entitled to apply for registration as an OCI under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 regardless of gender, sex or sexual orientation of the applicant spouse. .8. Kajal & anr vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Anindita PujariBrief: This petition has been filed by two adult women and citizens of India who wish to get married to each other to ensure that their relationship is formally recognised and they are protected from the family of the second petitioner. However, the Special Marriage Act poses a roadblock..9. Mellissa Ferrier & Anr vs Union of IndiaLawyers: Rahul Narayan, Shashwat Goel and Muskan TibrewalaBrief: The petitioners have been in a relationship for 21 years and were legally married in Australia in 2018. They are parents to two children. The petitioners seek OCI status for Petitioner No. 2 as she is the spouse of Petitioner No. Section 7A(l)(d) the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides that "spouses of foreign origin" of OCIs are eligible for grant of OCI status as long as their marriage has subsisted for over 2 years. However, an OCI card was denied to the petitioner as same-sex marriage is not recognised in India. .10. Nibedita Dutta & anr vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Shally BhasinBrief: The petitioner had married the co-petitioner in Varanasi following Hindu rituals. Though they feel they are married in the eyes of God, the petitioners now seek legal recognition for their marital tie. .11. Nikesh PP & anr vs Union of IndiaLawyers: George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, AR Dileep, PJ Joe Paul, Manu Srinath and Rajan G GeorgeBrief: The petitioners hail from Ernakulam District in Kerala. They are the first openly declared homosexual couple and they intend to get their marriage solemnized and registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The petitioners plead that by denying equal access to marriage, the State is denying them fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. .12. Nitin Karani & Anr vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Nupur KumarBrief: The petitioners are a male same-sex couple. The plea states that several banks and financial institutions refused to even consider their home loan application jointly because they are unrelated by blood and are not in a marriage recognized by law in India. .13. Parth Phiroze Mehrotra vs Union of IndiaLawyer: M/S Karanjawala & coBrief: The petitioners - Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj Anand - have been in love with each other and have had a relationship for the last 17 years. The petitioners assert for themselves, and for all members of the LGTBQ+ community, the fundamental right to many any person of their choice, irrespective of gender identity and sexual orientation..14. Rituparna Bohra vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Aakarsh KamraBrief: The petitioners are queer feminist activists and young couples who have faced rejection at the hands of their families owing to their self-determined gender identity. The petitioners not only challenge the Special Marriage Act, but also seek directions to prevent violence being meted out to individuals who express their sexual orientation..15. Sameer Samudra vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Nupur KumarBrief: The petitioners seek legal recognition of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. They sought to register their marriage in Pune under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on September 23, 2021 before the Registrar. However, the Registrar refused to do so..16. Udit Sood & ors vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Karanjawala & CoBrief: Petitioner No. 1 graduated from West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) with a gold medal in intellectual property law and now works with a leading international law firm. Petitioner No. 2 has established himself as an economic consultant specializing in antitrust litigation. Petitioner No. 3 is an Artificial Intelligence scientist. Petitioner No 4 is a software developer. Their joint plea prays that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act - which only recognizes unions between a male and a female - be declared unconstitutional. .17. Utkarsh Saxena vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Shadan FarasatBrief: The petitioners have been in a long-term, same-sex relationship since 2008. They wish to marry under Indian law through the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969..18. Vaibhav Jain & anr vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Arundhati Katju, Govind Manoharan and Surabhi Dhar Brief: The petitioners - an Indian citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India - are two gay men who married in Washington DC, United States in 2017. However, the Indian consulate refused the application for registration of their marriage on grounds of their sexual orientation alone. The plea states that Foreign Marriage Act ought to be read to apply to same-sex marriages and is unconstitutional to the extent that it does not do so..19. Dr Akkai Padmashali vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Kumar Dushyant SinghBrief: This plea by transgender persons seeks a declaration that all references to "husband" and "wife" in Sections 4, 22, 23, 27 and 44 of the Special Marriage Act 1954 be read so as to include the words 'or spouse' after the said words so as to include all persons irrespective of their gender identity and sexual orientation..20. Zainab J Patel vs Union of IndiaLawyer: Shally BhasinBrief: The petitioner and her partner entered into a civil union in South Africa in 2016, before she transitioned from male to female. But despite her best efforts, they could not get India to recognize their civil union. The plea contends that denying transgender persons the right to marry a person of their choice - whatever may be their gender identity or sexual orientation - relegates the petitioner and crores of transgender persons to second-class citizenship.