Supreme Court Sets Deadline for Jet Airways Funding; NCLAT to Decide Fate.

CASE TITLE – State Bank of India and Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr Murari Lal Jalan and Mr Florian Fritsch and Anr.

CASE NUMBER – 2024 INSC 51 (Neutral Citation)

DATED ON – 18.01.2024

QUORUM CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra


A Resolution Plan was submitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by a consortium of Murari Lal Jalan and Florian Fristch in respect of the Corporate Debtor (Jet Airways Limited). The Plan was voted upon and approved by the Committee of Creditors on 17 October 2020. In terms of Clause 7.6.1 of the Resolution Plan, the SRA is obligated to re-commence operations as an aviation company subject to the fulfilment of five conditions precedent, namely- (i) Validation of Airline Operator Permit of the Corporate Debtor by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA); (ii) Submission and Approval of Business Plan by DGCA and MoCA, (iii) Slot Allotment Approval, (iv) International Traffic Rights’ Clearance; and (v) Approval of Demerger of ground handling business into a company, namely AGSL. The date of completion of the Conditions Precedent was defined as the ‘Effective Date’. Given the uncertainty surrounding the Effective Date, the NCLT, in its Plan Approval Order, mandated the completion of Conditions Precedent and the attainment of the Effective Date within the first 90 days from the Approval Date. The Order also granted the flexibility to request an extension of the 180-day timeline, allowing for an outer limit of 270 days, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Resolution Plan. Following the Effective Date, the SRA is then required to infuse funds and fulfil specified payments to stakeholders, including disbursements to Employees, Workmen, and other Operational Creditors, within 180 days from the Effective Date. The Successful Resolution Applicant and the consortium of lenders represented by the State Bank of India were not ad idem on whether the conditions precedent were fulfilled. The SRA took the position that all conditions precedent had been duly fulfilled. Consequently, on May 20 2022, the DGCA reissued an Air Operation Certificate, confirming the authorization for the Corporate Debtor to engage in commercial air operations. The SRA communicated via email to the Lenders, affirming compliance with all prerequisites and proposing that May 20 2022, should be recognized as the effective date under the Resolution Plan. However, the lenders took a position to the contrary. By an order dated 13 January 2023, the NCLT came to the conclusion that the SRA was compliant with the conditions precedent. It allowed the Implementation Application, thereby inter alia permitting the SRA to take control and management of the Corporate Debtor. The period of six months for implementation would commence from 16 November 2022. The order of the NCLT has been challenged by SBI in appeal, and on 3 March 2023, the NCLAT declined to stay the order of the NCLT, which has given rise to three sets of appeals.


Whether the conditions precedent to the Resolution Plan were fulfilled by the SRA.


The Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of SBI, submitted that by its affidavit dated 16 August 2023, SBI had clearly stipulated three conditions, among them being that the SRA must infuse Rs 350 crores by 31 August 2023, and that the plain meaning of the expression “infuse” is that the SRA was liable to pay three tranches of a total amount of Rs 350 crores and the NCLAT was not justified at the interim stage in permitting an adjustment of the PBG of Rs 150 crores against the obligation to deposit the last tranche. He also stated that the SRA had to undertake to comply with the other terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan besides complying with the liabilities relating to the payment to the employees. As regards the payment to the employees, an appeal filed by the SRA before the Supreme Court against the order of the NCLAT dated 21 October 2022 was dismissed on 30 January 2023, and yet there is no compliance towards the employees and staff. The SBI had stated that the lenders have been saddled with huge recurring expenditure every month to maintain the remaining airline assets of the Corporate Debtor, and that the lenders have been embroiled in litigation before the NCLT and NCLAT with little progress on this ground towards implementing the resolution plan. Such a state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue interminably as it defeats the very object and purpose of the provisions of and timelines under the IBC.


The Senior Counsel on behalf of the SRA, has been submitted that The Resolution Plan specifically contemplates the adjustment of the PBG (originally of Rs 47.5 crores, subsequently enhanced to Rs 150 crores), and also supported this by placing reliance on the summary of payments and security package forming a part of clause 6.4.4 of the Resolution Plan. He also contended that no specific date for the release of the security in relation to the PBG had been mentioned and Moreover, in respect of the second tranche comprising of Rs 195 crores, there was no requirement to furnish any security in the form of a PBG.

The lenders have submitted that the admitted claim of the Financial Creditors is Rs 7800 crores, while the package offered by the SRA in the Resolution Plan is Rs 4783 crores payable in tranches in five years and instead of infusing Rs 350 crores, being the first tranche of payment, which was to be paid in 180 days, the SRA had infused a sum of Rs 187 crores after two years, in addition to Rs 13 crores paid by a third party. The lenders had argued in the appeals that there has been a failure on the part of the SRA to comply with the conditions precedent, and that If the SRA were to comply with the terms as envisaged in SBI’s affidavit dated 16 August 2023, evidently issues pertaining to compliance with the conditions precedent would not to be pressed thereafter.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that in the circumstances the NCLAT was not justified in holding, in its order dated 28 August 2023, that the last tranche of Rs 150 crores which was to be paid would be adjusted against the PBG, and the SRA having deposited the first two tranches each of Rs 100 crores must comply with the remaining obligation of depositing Rs 150 crores (to make up a total payment of Rs 350 crores). Having by its conduct accepted the terms set up by SBI it must be obligated to comply with the entirety of its obligations and it must do so in strict compliance with the time schedule set out hereafter. The Court in order to furnish the SRA a final opportunity to comply and consistent with the above position, issued the following directions: (i) The SRA shall peremptorily on or before 31 January 2024, deposit an amount of Rs 150 crores into the designated account of SBI, failing which the consequences under the Resolution Plan shall follow. (ii) The PBG of Rs 150 crores shall continue to remain in operation and effect, pending the final disposal of the appeal before NCLAT, and shall abide by the final outcome of the appeal and the directions that may be issued by NCLAT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the order dated 28 August 2023 of the NCLAT is to be modified in part in terms of the above directions and, hence, the permission which was granted to the SRA to adjust the last tranche of Rs 150 crores against the PBG shall stand substituted by the same, following which, all three of the appeals were disposed of, and requested that the NCLAT endeavour an expeditious disposal of the appeal by the end of March 2024.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement









The Supreme Court of India Paves Way for Dignified Livelihoods: Imposes Stringent Measures to Abolish Manual Scavenging Menace

Case Title – Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number – W.P. No. 17380 of 2017; 31345 of 2014 and W.P. (MD) No. 24243 of 2017

Dated on – 29th April,2024

Quorum – The Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad


In the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Appellants instituted a Writ Petition seeking for the directions against the Respondents to cease the practice of manual scavenging, take Criminal Legal actions against the Respondents in the cases of violations, compensate fully the family of the victims who have attained death due to the manual scavenging, use machines for cleaning the septic tanks, and rigorously implement the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Even after assurances from the authorities and the prevailing of the laws prohibiting the manual scavenging, the practice continues due to the entrenched social norms, caste-based discrimination, and systematic failures. The Appellants, in the present case, asserted that the practice of manual scavenging is a staid violation of human rights, eternalizing the cycle of tyranny and discrimination faced by the individuals engaged in this hazardous profession.


  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented for the extermination of manual scavenging and the rehabilitation of scavengers to more decorous job opportunities within Tamil Nadu.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that even after the applicability of laws like the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, manual scavenging persists due to systematic failures and social discrimination.


  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that they have taken all the requisite steps to prevent manual scavenging, inclusive of the machines for clearing the septic tanks and compensating for death.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the accidents and the deaths concerning the manual scavenging occurred due to the shortcoming of the private contractors and that they have taken all the requisite actions as per law.


  1. Section 2(j) of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 prescribes the Definition of the term “Manual Scavengers”
  2. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Prohibition of human trafficking and forced labour, including begging and similar forms of forced labour
  3. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Abolishment of Untouchability
  4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India prescribes the prescribes the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty


  1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the constant and unending practice of the manual scavenging violates the human rights as well as fundamental rights of the people engaged in the conduction of the manual scavenging?
  2. Whether the preventive measures taken by the Respondents are decent to exterminate the manual scavenging and ensure the welfare of the people engaged in the conduction of the manual scavenging?
  3. Whether the added instructions from the court are mandatory to address the issues efficiently


The court in the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors., acknowledged the tenacious issue of manual scavenging and the impact of it on the fundamental rights as well as the human rights and dignity of the individuals involved in the job of manual scavenging. The court in this case observed the inadequate existing laws and measures to annihilate the manual scavenging efficaciously. The court, in this present case, stressed on the need for the multifarious varied approaches, inclusive of the legislative reforms, social awareness campaigns, and alternative opportunities for the purpose of a better livelihood, to tackle with the issue effectively. The court took into consideration the contentions of both the parties, i.e., the Appellants and the Respondents, and issued a series of guidelines and directions to the Respondent authorities, inclusive of:

  • Taking strict actions against those engaging in manual scavenging
  • Providing shielding equipment and mechanizing sewer cleaning
  • Ameliorating compensation for deaths and injuries concerning the manual scavenging
  • Framing schemes for benevolent appointments and rehabilitation of the manual scavengers
  • Assuring stringent enactment of the pertinent laws and enervating the workers about the legislative provisions and rehabilitation schemes

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment


“Supreme Court relieves DMRC of hefty arbitral award to DAMEPL in a Curative Petition.”

Case Title: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: Curative Petition (C) No(s). 108-109 of 2022Dated: 10th April, 2024
Quorum: CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant

This case revolves around the Delhi Metro Connectivity issue with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. as the Petitioner. The Respondent (Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.) is incorporated with a consortium.

The parties entered into a Concession Agreement in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Agreement’). The agreement was regarding the construction, operation and maintenance of Delhi Airport Metro Express Ltd. The primary focus of the agreement was revolving the connectivity of focal locations in Delhi. In April 2012, DAMEPL requested a concession fee deferment due to station access delays in their public-private partnership with DMRC. A Joint Inspection Committee was formed to investigate defects. Operations were stopped on 08 July 2012 as per the will of the Respondent.

A notice was issued by the Respondent stating a list of 8 ‘non exhaustive’ defects which, as per their contentions, affected the smooth operation of the metro. Eventually, a notice of Termination was issued by the Respondent as 90 days’ time period had expired with regards to the ‘cure period’.

In 2013, DAMEPL handed over AMEL operations to DMRC. The Commissioner of Metro Railway Safety (CMRS) had issued sanctions with certain restrictions of speed limit. DMRC sought arbitration proceeding in 2013. Order passed was in 2017 in favour of DAMEPL.

Subsequently, DMRC filed a petition in Delhi HC which was dismissed, an appeal was filed which was allowed. Thus, DAMEPL filed an SLP in the apex court to no avail.

DMRC claimed that it promptly addressed the defects upon receiving the ‘cure notice’. They engaged with SYSTRA, the original design consultant, and held meetings with the Ministry of Urban Development. It was further DMRC v. DAMEPL contended that DAMEPL played an active role in these measures.

The Petitioner further contends that the termination notice was ultimately triggered by the project’s financial infeasibility, not the aforementioned reasons. DMRC seeks to nullify the termination notice and compel the respondent to fulfill their obligations under the 2008 agreement.

The Respondent contends that there were delays in providing access to the Stations in question by the DMRC. DAMEPL, further expressed its intention to stop the operation of the metro with immediate affect by issuing a non exhaustive list of 8 defects which hampered the performance of contract as per the the Agreement, 2008.

DAMEPL further contended that these defects rather a “material adverese effect” on the performance of obligations in order to operate, manage and maintain the project.

S.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for Application for setting aside Arbitral Awards: If an aggrieved party is unsatisfied with the award of Arbitration, the only option to set aside the award is to apply to a Court.
S.37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for Appealable Orders: It is the only appellate remedy available against a decision under Section 34.

– Whether the curative petition is maintainable.
– Whether this Court was justified in restoring the arbitral award which had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality.


The Supreme Court pronounced the judgement and analyzed it in 3 parts-
i) “Curative Petition may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice”-
It was held that the court can entertain a Curative Petition only when there is a prima facie scope to prevent the abuse of its process, to prevent infringement or abuse of justice particularly in instances where the principles of natural justice have been violated.

ii) “Scope of interference of Courts with arbitral awards”-
S.34 of the Act lays down provision for setting aside an arbitral award only by means of application to competent courts. It was held that apart from the grounds in S.34(2) , there is another ground for challenging the award which is if the court determines that there’s a clear and obvious legal error in the arbitration award, they can set it aside. This error is known as “patent illegality,” and it’s evident from the award itself. So, in simpler terms, if there’s a glaring legal mistake, the court can intervene and nullify the award.

iii) “The award was patently illegal”-
It was held that there is a prima facie fundamental error, inter alia, in the way the Division Bench of the High Court dealt with the challenge. The Division Bench of the High Court reviewed a decision made under Section 37. They found that the arbitration award had ignored essential facts and evidence that were vital for resolving the issues before the arbitral tribunal.

The Supreme Court further held that The Tribunal’s decision centered around the presence of defects after the cure period. According to their reasoning, the existence of defects at the end of the cure period indicated that they were not fully resolved. However, the Tribunal did not clarify what qualifies as an “effective step” during the cure period. They treated in-progress actions that hadn’t yet resulted in complete defect resolution as insufficient to offset termination. Essentially, the Tribunal equated the components of defect curing and taking effective steps, emphasizing only completed defect resolution as relevant. Yet, they did not elaborate on what constitutes an effective step or why DMRC’s actions fell short within that context.

To summarize it, the Supreme Court swiftly dealt with the fiasco of unanswered questions pertaining to Curative Petition and relieved the Petitioner of about 8000 Crore arbitral award to the Respondent.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgment reviewed by- Riddhi S Bhora

Click here to view judgment


Whether failure to submit the FSL report along with the Charge sheet entitles a default bail to the accused? Supreme Court refers the matter to a Larger Bench

Case title: Hanif Ansari Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case no.: SLP (Crl.) No(s). 15293/2023

Decision on: March 19th, 2024

Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the case

In this case, the petitioner was implicated for committing offences under various provisions of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The allegations against him involved recovery of 2 kgs of heroin. The petitioner was arrested on 07.04.2022 and the charge sheet was filed on 07.10.2024. At that point of time, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, identifying the specimen allegedly seized as the aforesaid contraband article, was not available. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court on the grievance that the complete charge sheet was not submitted within the stipulated amount of time as per Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973. He thus, sought for a default-bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code. However, the FSL Report was submitted later on 05.07.2023, confirming the seized material as heroin. The High Court refused to grant a default bail despite non-filling of the FSL Report with the charge sheet.

Submissions of the Parties

The Counsel on behalf of State argued that the spot-testing kit used by the arresting team revealed that the seized material was heroin. On the contrary, the Counsel for Petitioner rebutted it by contending that such spot-testing kit results had no evidentiary value. He only pleaded for the adjudication of the point of law in question and did not seek for an interim bail.

Issue – Whether non-furnishing of the FSL report with the charge sheet, would account to an incomplete charge sheet and would that be a ground to grant a default bail to the accused?

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court examined the impugned judgement passed by the High Court of Delhi and other cases on the same line. During the course of proceedings, it tagged the cases which involved similar question of law. It observed that though the matters were dealt with the same point of law, the interim bail has not been granted in every petition. It noted that this Court in the cases of Pabitra Narayan Pradhan Vs The State (NGT) of Delhi and Shankar @ Shiva Maheshwar Savai Vs The State of Gujarat had declined the pleas for granting the bail but however did not adjudicate on the aforementioned question of law. It further, emphasized that certain other factors like the quantity of the contraband articles being seized and period of incarceration were considered in the aforesaid orders while granting interim bail.

The Bench in view of diversity of rulings by different Benches of this Court on the question of interim bail and law, opined that a larger Bench would be appropriate to adjudicate the question as to whether failure on the part of the prosecution to include the FSL report pertaining to the seized contraband article(s) along with the charge sheet, within the time specified in Section 167(2) of the Code read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act, would entitle the accused to default bail or not. Thereby, the Bench placed the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India by tagging other similar cases and abstained from making any observations on the merits of the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement


Burden To Decide On The Rights Regarding Same Sex Marriage Now Resides With Legislators: Supreme Court Of India

By-Sushant Kumar Sharma


The burden to decide on the demand of legalizing and recognizing same-sex marriage by the LGBTQIA+ community now resides with the legislators after the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment. The petitioners in the case stressed equality rights for the community and acknowledged the unions of same-sex marriage.

The demand for legal recognition of same-sex marriage goes back to the landmark case of  Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decriminalized homosexuality. However, the issues related to homosexuality which were going to arise in the coming future were not addressed in the case.


Before the judgment of  Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India article 377 of the Indian constitution categorised intercourse between same sex as an “unnatural Offence”. The provision is a Victorian-era law, which survived into the 21st century. Interestingly, about 123 countries around the World have never penalized or decriminalized homosexuality. Currently, 57 countries actively criminalize same-sex relations. [1]

Under Articles 14,15,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Naz Foundation Trust challenged the constitutional validity of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention was that the understanding of sex according to the provision of IPC was solely for the purpose of procreation which is an inadequate and unjust way to deduce the purpose of sex in modern society. The High Court of Delhi ruled in favour of the petitioners and decriminalized same-sex marriage and the same was reversed by the Supreme Court of India in the year 2013. The Supreme Court of India held that the power to decriminalize same-sex marriage is with the parliament and not with the Court.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India was later challenged in a fresh writ filed by five individuals of the LGBTQ Community in which a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court partially struck down section 377 of IPC and decriminalized same-sex intercourse.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code:

Unnatural offenses —Whoever voluntarily has carnal inter­course against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with impris­onment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.[2]


After the judgment of the Supreme Court decriminalizing same-sex intercourse on September 2018, there were a lot of people objecting it on the basis of it being against the sentiments and culture of Hindus.  But the origin of the criminalization of homosexuality in India is a reflection of European morality arising out of Christianity and by section 377 of the Indian Penal Code of 1861 Britishers criminalized homosexuality.

On the other hand in Hindu scriptures we can find evidence of Hindu religion being more open and accepting about the queers and homosexuality was a normal aspect of our past which was made into a taboo by the Britishers in the colonial period. For instance few instances from Hindu scriptures are mentioned below:

  • Krittivasa Ramayana: Text states that King Dilip had two wives, and he died without leaving an heir. Following this, Lord Shiva appeared in the dreams of the queens and told them that they would bear a child if they made love to each other. The widowed queens did as directed, and one of them got pregnant, eventually giving birth to King Bhagiratha. He is a famous king known to have brought River Ganga from heaven on earth.[3]
  • Matsya Puran: It talks about the time Lord Vishnu transitioned into a beautiful women named “Mohini” to trick the demons and letting the gods drink the amrit.
  • Mahabhartha: The sacred text of Hindu’s contain a story of Sikhandi who was born a women but was raised as a man who later with the help of yaksha to become a man to enter the war.
  • Kamasutra: Chapter nine of Kamasutra by Vatsyayana discusses oral sexual acts, termed Auparashtika, homosexuality, and sexual activities among transgender persons.[4]


The bench of 5 judges in a majority of  3:2 ruled against the demand of LGBTQIA+ for wanting rights to adopt and constitutional protection for civil unions. But there were several points where the judges agreed with each other and there were points on which they disagreed.

1. Points where the Judges agreed:

1.1 Anonymously the whole bench agreed that queerness is not solely an urban concept :

CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud Said:

Homosexuality or queerness is not solely an urban concept, nor is it restricted to the upper classes or privileged communities. People may be queer regardless of whether they are from villages, small towns, or semi-urban and urban spaces. Similarly, they may be queer regardless of their caste and economic location. It is not just the English-speaking man with a white-collar job who lives in a metropolitan city and is otherwise affluent who can lay claim to being queer but also (and equally) the woman who works on a farm in an agricultural community,” 

Justice Kaul Said:

The non-heterosexual relation is a part of Indian civilization and Justice Kaul also cited illustrations from the Rig Veda, Somdatta’s Kathasaritsagara, and Sufi tradition to prove that the non-heterosexual unions were a part of mankind through history and different cultures”

“It would thus be misconceived to claim that non-heterosexual unions are only a facet of the modern social milieu”

 1.2 Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage is not given under the Special Marriage Act :

CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud Said:

A verdict to strike down the provision of the Special Marriage Act will take India to pre Independence era, the CJI added,  “Such a judicial verdict would not only have the effect of taking the nation back to the era when it was clothed in social inequality and religious intolerance but would also push the courts to choose between eradicating one form of discrimination and prejudice at the cost of permitting another,”

 Justice Kaul:

In a separate Judgement Justice Kaul agreed on SMA being violative of right to equality, he added “However, I recognize that there are multifarious interpretive difficulties in reading down the SMA to include marriages between non-heterosexual relationships. As rightly pointed out by the learned Solicitor General, tinkering with the scope of marriage under the SMA can have a cascading effect across these disparate laws,” 

 Justice Bhatt Jointly With Justice Kohli:

They stated that it would be extending the scope of the SMA out of its objective if it was to be read to include same-sex marriage, as the act sought to provide an avenue for those marriages that did not enjoy support in society or did not have the benefit of custom to solemnize.[5]

1.3 Right to Marry is not a Fundamental Right:

Justice Bhat:

“The fundamental importance of marriage remains that it is based on personal preference and confers social status. The importance of something to an individual does not per se justify considering it a fundamental right, even if that preference enjoys popular acceptance or support… There cannot, for the above reasons, be a per se assertion that there exists an unqualified right to marry which requires treatment as a fundamental freedom.”

Justice Narshimha:

“There is no unqualified right to marriage guaranteed by the Constitution, that qualifies it as a fundamental freedom.”

  1. Points where Judges Disagreed:

2.1 Everyone has the right to enter a Civil Union:

CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said:

“The right to enter into a union includes the right to associate with a partner of one’s choice, according to recognition to the association, and ensuring that there is no denial of access to basic goods and services is crucial to achieving the goal of self-development,” 

“A failure to recognise such entitlements would result in systemic discrimination against queer couples,”

 Justice Bhatt:

Justice Bhatt conflicted with the opinion of CJI and Justice Kaul and said “Ordering a social institution” or re-arranging existing social structures, by creating an entirely new kind of parallel framework for non-heterosexual couples, would require a conception of an entirely different code, and a new universe of rights and obligations. This would entail fashioning a regime of state registration, of marriage between non-heterosexual couples; the conditions for a valid matrimonial relationship amongst them, spelling out eligibility conditions, such as minimum age, relationships which fall within prohibited degrees; grounds for divorce, right to maintenance, alimony,”  There was an agreement on justice Bhatt’s opinion by Justice Kohli and justice Narasimha.

Justice Narsimha Said:

“The framing of a positive right and the positive entitlements which flow therefrom, essentially require the State to regulate such unions and benefits. In my opinion, the direction in effect, is to amend existing statutory frameworks, if not to legislate afresh,”

 2.2 Regarding queer adopting rights:

CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said:

“Such an assumption perpetuates a stereotype based on sexuality (that only heterosexuals are good parents and all other parents are bad parents) which is prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution”, Justice Kaul agreed with CJI on this stand.

Justice Bhatt:

Justice Bhatt on the other hand believed that both parents are required for good parenting and stated “To read the law in the manner adopted by the Chief Justice, with all due respect, would have disastrous outcomes, because the ecosystem of law as it exists, would be unable to guarantee protection to the said child in the case of breakdown of an unmarried couple, adopting jointly. This, therefore, would not be in the best interest of the child,”  

Justice Narsimha in a separate judgment greed with Justice Bhatt regarding the constitutionality of the CARA Regulations of 2020.


– The 3-2 majority in the five-judge constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rules that there cannot be legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India.

– The petitioners during the hearings argued for the equality rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and pleaded for acknowledgment to lead a dignified life.

– The court held that the queer community of India cannot be legally married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, of 1956.

– The court also refused to grant adoption rights for the LGBTQIA community while Chief Justice D.Y Chandrachud held a dissenting opinion.

– The final declaration of the Supreme Court was that the Parliament should decide on the issues regarding the under-inclusivity of the LGBTQIA+ community in the legislation


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


[1] Dr. Akkai Padmashali and Ors. v. Union of India, W.P. No. 159 of 2023

[2] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860

[3] Deepanshi Mehrotra, The Pre-Colonial History of Homosexuality in India : Why love is not western, LAWCTOPUS (June 29,2021),

[4] Supra

[5] Utkarsh Anand, Same-sex marriage verdict: Points of agreement, divergence between the 5 Supreme Court Justices, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Oct 18, 2023)