1

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W

(for judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1011/2022

SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)

(WITH IA No. 77591/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No.

78072/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 93478/2023 -
APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 89225/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T., IA No. 67243/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
78130/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 82649/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 89777/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 93943/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
67241/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 77589/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 78104/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 82585/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
57252/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 76395/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 82418/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 89264/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
53929/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 76346/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 78063/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 82401/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
91777/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 52855/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 82381/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 87116/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
89213/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 91562/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 74124/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 77910/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
82327/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 87110/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 88422/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 77890/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
83727/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 87179/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 90784/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 71983/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No.
77826/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 87164/2023 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 89988/2023 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 89286/2023 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.
87149/2023 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 93475/2023 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT,
Signature Not Verified
IA No. 87142/2023 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT,
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2023.10.20
IA No. 75060/2023 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT,
10:39:56 IST
Reason: IA No. 78057/2023 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 52775/2023 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 90903/2023 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 72352/2023 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 87151/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR
 2

AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 78594/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND

ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 78593/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE
IN PERSON, IA No. 83410/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN
PERSON, IA No. 87159/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH
W.P.(C) No. 93/2023 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION)

T.C.(C) No. 5/2023 (XI-A)

T.C.(C) No. 8/2023 (XIV-A)

(FOR ADMISSION)

T.C.(C) No. 9/2023 (XIV-A)

(FOR ADMISSION)

T.C.(C) No. 11/2023 (XIV-A)

(FOR ADMISSION)

T.C.(C) No. 12/2023 (XIV-A)

(FOR ADMISSION)

W.P.(C) No. 1020/2022 (PIL-W)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.176659/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

W.P.(C) No. 1105/2022 (X)

(FOR ADMISSION)

W.P.(C) No. 1141/2022 (X)

(FOR ADMISSION)

W.P.(C) No. 1142/2022 (X)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.201628/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
AFFIDAVIT)

W.P.(C) No. 1150/2022 (X)

(WITH IA No. 53745/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION)

W.P.(C) No. 159/2023 (PIL-W)

(FOR ADMISSION)

W.P.(C) No. 129/2023 (X)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.24442/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

W.P.(C) No. 260/2023 (X)

(FOR ADMISSION)

T.C.(C) No. 6/2023 (XIV-A)

W.P.(C) No. 319/2023 (X)

 3

T.C.(C) No. 7/2023 (XIV-A)

(FOR ADMISSION)

T.C.(C) No. 10/2023 (XIV-A)

(FOR ADMISSION)

T.C.(C) No. 13/2023 (XIV-A)

W.P.(C) No. 478/2023 (X)

(FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 17-10-2023 These matters were called on for pronouncement

of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv.
Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv.
Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Harshwardhan Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Meena, Adv.
Mr. Kailash Ram, Adv.
Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv.
Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Nigam, Adv.
Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Karanjawala, Adv.
Ms. Sanya Dua, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Kacker, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Grover, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Arora, Adv.
Ms. Kalyani Bhide, Adv.
Mr. Cyrus Jal, Adv.
For M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR
Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Shekhri, Adv.
Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv.
Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv.
Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Adv.
 4

Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Adv.

Mr. Abhishkar Singhvi, Adv.

Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Tara Narula, Adv.
Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv.
Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Sangwan, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Suman, Adv.
Ms. Bhabna Das, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv.
Mr. M.G. Aravind Raj, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Adv.
Mr. Luvkesh Bhambhani, Adv.
Mr. Sivagnanam Karthikeyan, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Saluja, Adv.
Mr. Harshwardhan Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Sridhar, Adv.
Ms. Asmita Narula, Adv.
Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv.
Mr. Navjot Singh, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Apoorva Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Karthik Sundar, Adv.
Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manas Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Meena, Adv.
Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Kailash Ram, Adv.
Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Chaitanya Safaya, Adv.
Ms. Sonal K Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anand Amit, Adv.
Ms. Varshini Sudhinder, Adv.
Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR

Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv.
Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Adv.
Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR
Mr. Himanshu Suman, Adv.
Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv.
Ms. Samridhi, Adv.
Ms. Supriya Julka, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv.
Mr. Harshwardhan Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Meena, Adv.
Mr. Kailash Ram, Adv.
 5

Ms. Anita Shenoy, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Amritananda Chakravarty, Adv.
Ms. Amritananda, Adv.
Mr. Mihir Samson, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Munoth, Adv.
Ms. Mukunda Mamidipudi, Adv.
Ms. Asawari Sodhi, Adv.
Mr. Aswathi Menon, Adv.
Ms. Anindita Pujari, AOR
Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Adv.
Ms. Sitamsini Cherukumalli, Adv.
Ms. Radhika Mahapatra, Adv.
Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Bhumika Chouksey, Adv.

Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR
Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv.

Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR

Mr. Kartikeya Bahadur, Adv.
Ms. Gayatri Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sangram Chinnappa, Adv.

Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.

Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv.
Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Harpreet Singh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Shiva Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Shivika Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv.
Ms. Serena Jethmalani, Adv.
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR

Ms. Vrinda Grover, Adv.

Mr. Suraj Sanap, Adv.
Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR
Ms. Devika Tulsiani, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR

Ms. Jayna Kothari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Adv.
Mr. Jatin Lalwani, Adv.
Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.
 6

Ms. Karuna Nundy, Adv.

Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Ms. Ragini Nagpal, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Karki, Adv.
Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv.

Ms. Karuna Nundy, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Narayan, AOR
Mr. Shashwat Goel, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Tibrewala, Adv.
Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Adv.

Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR

Mr. Manu Srinath, Adv.
Mr. M.P. Srivignesh, Adv.
Mr. Lakshman Raja. T, Adv.
Mr. Mithun Kumaar N, Adv.
Mr. Gopalakrishnan P, Adv.

Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR

Mr. Awnish Maithani, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Raghuwanshi, Adv.
Mr. Swapnil Jain, Adv.

By Courts Motion

For Respondent(s) Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India

Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Gaur Narula, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General

Mrs. Manisha Lavkumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ankit Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR
Mr. Arijit Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Adv.
Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv.
Ms. Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Adv.
 7

Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv.

Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv.
Mr. Niaz A Farooqui, Adv.

Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Aman Jha, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Prakash Shah, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Tutu, Adv.
Ms. M. Jannani, Adv.
Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.

Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
Ms. Saumya Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Shivam, Adv.
Mr. Saravjeet Singh, Adv.
Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv.
Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv.
Ms. Abhijeet Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv.
Ms. B.L.N. Shivani, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv.
Mr. Pratham Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Nithin Chowdhary Pavuluri, Adv.
Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha arputham, Adv.
Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore, Adv.
Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv.

Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, AOR
Ms. Nisha Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv.
Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv.
Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv.

Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Abhilash. M.R, Adv.
Mr. Sayooj Mohandas.M, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR
 8

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vikash Chandra Shukla, AOR
Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv.
Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Adv.
Ms. Sindoora Vnl, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Prabhsimar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S. Prabakaran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Apurba Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.
Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kumar Mahto, Adv.
Mr. G Jai Singh, Adv.
Mr. G Anandan, Adv.
Mr. B Sasi Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Jasmine Khurana, Adv.
Ms. RV Shaarumathi, Adv.
For M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv.

Dr. Sasmit Patra, Adv.

Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR
Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR

Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv.
Ms. Priya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Singhania, Adv.
Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv.
Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. S. Rajurkar, Adv.

Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv.
 9

Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv.

Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv.

Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR

Dr. Sasmit Patra, Adv.

Mr. Joby P. Varghese, AOR
Mr. Upamanyu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aby P Varghese, Adv.

Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, AOR

Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv.

Miss Meera Kaura, AOR
Mr. Tejas Patel, Adv.
Ms. Muskaan Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Akshay, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Saini, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Chandan, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Aneja, Adv.

Mr. Supratik Sarkar, Adv.

Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR

Mr. Mohd. Zahid Hussain, AOR

Mr. Comred Iqbal, Adv.
Mr. Camran Iqbal, Adv.
Ms. Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Adv.

Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR

Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Sudhakar Kulwant, Adv.
Ms. Shalini Kaul, Adv.
Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.

Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv.
Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv.
Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. N. B. V. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Adityaraj Patodia, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR

Mr. Alex Joseph, AOR

Mr. Gourave Kumar Agarwal, AOR

 10

Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR

Mr. Saif Zia, Adv.

Mr. J Sai Deepak, Adv.

Mr. V Shyamohan, Adv.
Ms. Shaktiki Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Avinash Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Avadhani, Adv.
Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Gogna, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Krishna, Adv.
M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR

Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Anukrit Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Mekala Ganesh Reddy, Adv.

Mr. Mukund P. Unny , AOR

Mr. Surya Kant, AOR

Ms. Manisha Narayan Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.

Mr. Sadashiv, AOR

Dr. AP Singh, Adv.
Mr. VP Singh, Adv.
Mr. Fatesh Kumar Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Singh Pal, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Richa Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Geeta Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Devendra Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Intervenor-in-person

Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Group Captain Karan Singh Bhati, Adv.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
Ms. Apurva Mahntiyan, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv.
Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv.

Ms. Sanjivani Aggarwal, Adv.

Ms. Jyoti Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Shekhavat, Adv.
Ms. Filza Moonis, AOR

Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv.

Ms. Thulasi K Raj, Adv.
 11

Ms. Aparna Menon, Adv.

Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Abraham Mathew, Adv.
Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.a., AOR

Mr. Atulesh Kumar, AOR

Mr. Pulkit Srivastava, AOR

Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR

Ms. Mughda Pandhe, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Wedo Khalo, Adv.
Ms. Serena Jethmalani, Adv.
Mr. Harshit Shishodia, Adv.
Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv.

Ms. Priya Aristotle, AOR

Dr. Joseph Aristotle S, Adv.
Mr. George Varghese, Adv.
Ms. Sheela Washington, Adv.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Navneet R, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Adv.
Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv.
Ms. Megha Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, AOR

Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv.

Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv.
Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR

Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR

Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv.
Mr. A. Mukunda Rao, Adv.
Mr. Yashvir Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Adv.

Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv.
Mr. Prashanth Dixit, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv.
For M/S. Devasa & Co.

Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR

Ms. Tanushree Bhalla, in-person

 12

1 Hon’ble Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr Justice

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Mr Justice

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha pronounced separate judgments.

2 In terms of the reportable judgment, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India issued

following directions and conclusions:

“339 Counsel for the petitioners and some counsel for the
respondents advanced extensive submissions on the various
forms of violence and discrimination that society and the
state machinery inflict upon the queer community, and
especially queer couples. This has been discussed in detail in
the prefatory part of the judgment. Counsel sought directions
to obviate such violence and discrimination.

a. The Union Government, State Governments, and

Governments of Union Territories are directed to:

i. Ensure that the queer community is not discriminated

against because of their gender identity or sexual
orientation;
ii. Ensure that there is no discrimination in access to
goods and services to the queer community, which are
available to the public;
iii. Take steps to sensitise the public about queer identity,
including that it is natural and not a mental disorder;
iv. Establish hotline numbers that the queer community
can contact when they face harassment and violence in
any form;
v. Establish and publicise the availability of ‘safe houses’
or Garima Grehs in all districts to provide shelter to
members of the queer community who are facing
violence or discrimination;
vi. Ensure that “treatments” offered by doctors or other
persons, which aim to change gender identity or sexual
orientation are ceased with immediate effect;
vii. Ensure that inter-sex children are not forced to undergo
operations with regard only to their sex, especially at
an age at which they are unable to fully comprehend
and consent to such operations;
viii. Recognize the self-identified gender of all persons
including transgender persons, hijras, and others with
sociocultural identities in India, as male, female, or
third gender. No person shall be forced to undergo
hormonal therapy or sterilisation or any other medical
procedure either as a condition or prerequisite to grant
legal recognition to their gender identity or otherwise;
 13

b. The appropriate Government under the Mental

Healthcare Act must formulate modules covering the mental
health of queer persons in their programmes under Section
29(1). Programmes to reduce suicides and attempted
suicides (envisaged by Section 29(2)) must include
provisions which tackle queer identity;

c. The following directions are issued to the police

machinery:
i. There shall be no harassment of queer couples by
summoning them to the police station or visiting their
places of residence solely to interrogate them about
their gender identity or sexual orientation;
ii. They shall not force queer persons to return to their
natal families if they do not wish to return to them;
iii. When a police complaint is filed by queer persons
alleging that their family is restraining their freedom of
movement, they shall on verifying the genuineness of
the complaint ensure that their freedom is not
curtailed;
iv. When a police complaint is filed apprehending violence
from the family for the reason that the complainant is
queer or is in a queer relationship, they shall on
verifying the genuineness of the complaint ensure due
protection; and
v. Before registering an FIR against a queer couple or one
of the parties in a queer relationship (where the FIR is
sought to be registered in relation to their relationship),
they shall conduct a preliminary investigation in terms
of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P1, to ensure
that the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The
police must first determine if the person is an adult. If
the person is an adult and is in a consensual
relationship with another person of the same or
different gender or has left their natal home of their
own volition, the police shall close the complaint after
recording a statement to that effect.

G. Conclusions and orders of enforcement

340 In view of the discussion above, the following are our
conclusions:

a. This Court is vested with the authority to hear this

case. Under Article 32, this Court has the power to issue
directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of the rights
in Part III;
b. Queerness is a natural phenomenon known to India
since ancient times. It is not urban or elite;
c. There is no universal conception of the institution of
marriage, nor is it static. Under Articles 245 and 246 of the
Constitution read with Entry 5 of List III to the Seventh
Schedule, it lies within the domain of Parliament and the
state legislatures to enact laws recognizing and regulating
1
(2014) 2 SCC 1
 14

queer marriage;
d. Marriage has attained significance as a legal institution
largely because of regulation by the state. By recognizing a
relationship in the form of marriage, the state grants
material benefits exclusive to marriage;
e. The State has an interest in regulating the ‘intimate
zone’ to democratize personal relationships;
f. The issue of whether the Constitution recognizes the
right to marry did not arise before this Court in Justice KS
Puttaswamy (9J) (supra), Shafin Jahan (supra), and
Shakti Vahini (supra);
g. The Constitution does not expressly recognize a
fundamental right to marry. An institution cannot be
elevated to the realm of a fundamental right based on the
content accorded to it by law. However, several facets of the
marital relationship are reflections of constitutional values
including the right to human dignity and the right to life and
personal liberty;
h. This Court cannot either strike down the constitutional
validity of SMA or read words into the SMA because of its
institutional limitations. This Court cannot read words into
the provisions of the SMA and provisions of other allied laws
such as the ISA and the HSA because that would amount to
judicial legislation. The Court in the exercise of the power of
judicial review must steer clear of matters, particularly those
impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain;
i. The freedom of all persons including queer couples to
enter into a union is protected by Part III of the Constitution.
The failure of the state to recognise the bouquet of
entitlements which flow from a union would result in a
disparate impact on queer couples who cannot marry under
the current legal regime. The state has an obligation to
recognize such unions and grant them benefit under law;
j. In Article 15(1), the word ‘sex’ must be read to include
‘sexual orientation’ not only because of the causal
relationship between homophobia and sexism but also
because the word ‘sex’ is used as a marker of identity which
cannot be read independent of the social and historical
context;
k. The right to enter into a union cannot be restricted
based on sexual orientation. Such a restriction will be
violative of Article 15. Thus, this freedom is available to all
persons regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation;
l. The decisions in Navtej (supra) and Justice KS
Puttaswamy (9J) (supra) recognize the right of queer
couples to exercise the choice to enter into a union. This
relationship is protected from external threat. Discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation will violate Article 15;
m. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships
have the right to marry under existing law including personal
laws which regulate marriage;
n. Intersex persons who identify as either male or female
have the right to marry under existing law including personal
laws which regulate marriage;
o. The state must enable the LGBTQ community to
exercise its rights under the Constitution. Queer persons
 15

have the right to freedom from coercion from their natal

families, agencies of the state including the police, and other
persons;
p. Unmarried couples (including queer couples) can
jointly adopt a child. Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption
Regulations is ultra vires the JJ Act, Articles 14, and 15.
Regulation 5(3) is read down to exclude the word “marital”.
The reference to a ‘couple’ in Regulation 5 includes both
married and unmarried couples as well as queer couples.
The principle in Regulation 5(2)(a) that the consent of
spouses in a marriage must be obtained if they wish to
adopt a child together is equally applicable to unmarried
couples who seek to jointly adopt a child. However, while
framing regulations, the state may impose conditions which
will subserve the best interest and welfare of the child in
terms of the exposition in the judgment;
q. The CARA Circular disproportionately impacts the
queer community and is violative of Article 15;
r. The Union Government, State Governments, and
Governments of Union Territories shall not discriminate
against the freedom of queer persons to enter into union
with benefits under law; and
s. We record the assurance of the Solicitor General that
the Union Government will 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 unions. The Committee shall include experts with
domain knowledge and experience in dealing with the social,
psychological, and emotional needs of persons belonging to
the queer community as well as members of the queer
community. The Committee shall before finalizing its
decisions conduct wide stakeholder consultation amongst
persons belonging to the queer community, including
persons belonging to marginalized groups and with the
governments of the States and Union Territories.

The Committee shall in terms of the exposition in this

judgment consider the following:
i. Enabling partners in a queer relationship (i) to be
treated as a part of the same family for the purposes of
a ration card; and (ii) to have the facility of a joint bank
account with the option to name the partner as a
nominee, in case of death;
ii. In terms of the decision in Common Cause v. Union of
India2, as modified by Common Cause v. Union of
India3, medical practitioners have a duty to consult
family or next of kin or next friend, in the event patients
who are terminally ill have not executed an Advance
Directive. Parties in a union may be considered ‘family’
for this purpose;
iii. Jail visitation rights and the right to access the body of
the deceased partner and arrange the last rites; and
iv. Legal consequences such as succession rights,
maintenance, financial benefits such as under the
2
(2018) 5 SCC 1
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 99
 16

Income Tax Act 1961, rights flowing from employment

such as gratuity and family pension and insurance.

The report of the Committee chaired by the Cabinet

Secretary shall be implemented at the administrative level
by the Union Government and the governments of the
States and Union Territories.”

3 Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, while concurring with the judgment of

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, concluded as follows:

“33. Is this the end where we have arrived? The answer must
be an emphatic ‘no’. Legal recognition of non-
heterosexual unions represents a step forward towards
marriage equality. At the same time, marriage is not an
end in itself. Our Constitution contemplates a holistic
understanding of equality, which applies to all spheres of
life. The practice of equality necessitates acceptance and
protection of individual choices. The capacity of non-
heterosexual couples for love, commitment and
responsibility is no less worthy of regard than
heterosexual couples. Let us preserve this autonomy, so
long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. After
all, “it’s my life.”4“

4 Hon’ble Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhat pronounced the judgment on behalf of

himself and Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli. In terms of the reportable judgment,

the conclusions and directions are as follows:

“149. This court hereby summarizes its conclusions and

directions as follows:
i. There is no unqualified right to marriage except that
recognised by statute including space left by custom.
ii. An entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union –
akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status
upon the parties to the relationship can be only through
enacted law. A sequitur of this is that the court cannot
enjoin or direct the creation of such regulatory framework
resulting in legal status.
iii. The finding in (i) and (ii) should not be read as to preclude
queer persons from celebrating their commitment to each
other, or relationship, in whichever way they wish, within
the social realm.
iv. Previous judgments of this court have established that
queer and LGBTQ+ couples too have the right to union or
4
‘Its my life’, a song by Bon Jovi.
“It's my life
It's now or never
But I ain't gonna live forever
I just want to live while I'm alive”.
 17

relationship (under Article 21) – “be it mental, emotional

or sexual” flowing from the right to privacy, right to
choice, and autonomy. This, however, does not extend to
a right to claim entitlement to any legal status for the said
union or relationship.
v. The challenge to the SMA on the ground of under
classification is not made out. Further, the petitioner’s
prayer to read various provisions in a ‘gender neutral’
manner so as to enable same-sex marriage, is
unsustainable.
vi. Equality and non-discrimination are basic foundational
rights. The indirect discriminatory impacts in relation to
earned or compensatory benefits, or social welfare
entitlements for which marital status is a relevant
eligibility factor, for queer couples who in their exercise of
choice form relationships, have to be suitably redressed
and removed by the State. These measures need to be
taken with expedition because inaction will result in
injustice and unfairness with regard to the enjoyment of
such benefits, available to all citizens who are entitled and
covered by such laws, regulations or schemes (for
instance, those relating to employment benefits:
provident fund, gratuity, family pension, employee state
insurance; medical insurance; material entitlements
unconnected with matrimonial matters, but resulting in
adverse impact upon queer couples). As held earlier, this
court cannot within the judicial framework engage in this
complex task; the State has to study the impact of these
policies, and entitlements.
vii. Consistent with the statement made before this Court
during the course of proceedings on 03.05.2023, 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.
viii. The discussion on discriminatory impacts is in the context
of the effects of the existing regimes on queer couples.
While a heterosexual couple’s right to live together is not
contested, the logic of the discriminatory impact
[mentioned in conclusion (vi) above] faced by queer
couples cohabiting together, would definitionally,
however, not apply to them.
ix. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have
the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing
statutory provisions.
x. Regulation 5(3) of the CARA Regulations cannot be held
void on the grounds urged. At the same time, this court is
of the considered opinion that CARA and the Central
Government should appropriately consider the realities of
de facto families, where single individuals are permitted
to adopt and thereafter start living in a non-matrimonial
relationship. In an unforeseen eventuality, the adopted
child in question, could face exclusion from the benefits
 18

otherwise available to adopted children of married

couples. This aspect needs further consideration, for
which the court is not the appropriate forum.
xi. Furthermore, the State shall ensure - consistent with the
previous judgment of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy
(supra), Navtej Johar (supra), Shakti Vahini (supra) and
Shafin Jahan (supra)- that the choice exercised by queer
and LGBTQ couples to cohabit is not interfered with and
they do no face any threat of violence or coercion. All
necessary steps and measures in this regard shall be
taken. The respondents shall take suitable steps to ensure
that queer couples and transgender persons are not
subjected to any involuntary medical or surgical
treatment.
xii. The above directions in relation to transgender persons
are to be read as part of and not in any manner whittling
down the directions in NALSA (supra) so far as they apply
to transgender persons.
xiii. This court is alive to the feelings of being left out,
experienced by the queer community; however,
addressing their concerns would require a comprehensive
study of its implications involving a multidisciplinary
approach and polycentric resolution, for which the court is
not an appropriate forum to provide suitable remedies.”

5 Hon’ble Mr Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, while concurring with the

judgment of Hon’ble Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhat, concluded as follows:

a. The question of marriage equality of same sex/LGBTQ+ couples did

not arise for consideration in any of the previous decisions of this
Court, including the decision in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of
India5 and NALSA v. Union of India6. Consequently, there cannot be a
binding precedent on this count. The reasons for arriving at this
conclusion are articulated in the opinion of Justice Bhat.

b. The rights of LGBTQ+ persons, that have been hitherto recognized by

this Court, are the right to gender identity, sexual orientation, the
right to choose a partner, cohabit and enjoy physical & mental
intimacy. In the exercise of these rights, they have full freedom from
physical threat and from coercive action, and the State is bound to
afford them full protection of the law in case these rights are in peril.

5
(2018) 10 SCC 1
6
(2014) 5 SCC 438
 19

c. There is no unqualified right to marriage guaranteed by the

Constitution, that qualifies it as a fundamental freedom. With respect
to this, I agree with the opinion of Justice Bhat, but will supplement it
with some additional reasons.

d. The right to marriage is a statutory right, and to the extent it is

demonstrable, a right flowing from a legally enforceable customary
practice. In the exercise of such a right, statutory or customary, the
State is bound to extend the protection of law to individuals, so that
they can exercise their choices without fear and coercion. This, in my
opinion, is the real import of the decisions in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan
K.M.7 and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India8.

e. The constitutional challenge to the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and

the Foreign Marriage Act,1969 must fail, for the reasons indicated in
the opinion of Justice Bhat.

f. Similarly, Justice Bhat also rightly finds the semantic impossibilities of

gender-neutral constructions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and
the Foreign Marriage Act,1969. On both (e) and (f), the opinion of
Justice Bhat is exhaustive as to the reasons, and they need not be
supplemented.

g. I find that a right to a civil union or an abiding cohabitational

relationship conferring a legally enforceable status cannot be situated
within Part III of the Constitution of India. On this count too, I agree
with the conclusions of Justice Bhat, and supplement them with my
own reasons.

h. I agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of Justice Bhat with
respect to the constitutionality of Regulation 5(3) of the CARA
Regulations, 2020.

6 In terms of the reportable judgments, the Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases

7
(2018) 16 SCC 368
8
(2018) 7 SCC 192
 20

are disposed of.

7 Pending applications, including applications for intervention/impleadment, stand

disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Four reportable judgments are placed on the file)