Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, PS Narasimha, JJ wrote 4 opinions on the Same Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality matter where they agreed on some points and disagreed on others. In a 366 pages long verdict, heavy on words, all judges said in one voice that there was no fundamental right to marry and that the Supreme Court could not enter judicial legislation to read words into the Special Marriage Act and make it a gender-neutral legislation. The Court left it to Parliament to undertake this process. There were however some disagreements on certain points where Bhat, Kohli and Narasimha, JJ formed the majority and Chandrachud, CJI and Kaul, J were in dissent.
To understand what the matter was about and what was being sought before the Court, read this.
While the verbose judgment touched upon various aspects relating to the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, below are the broad agreements and disagreements affecting the rights sought by the petitioners.
Bird’s Eye View of Broad Agreements and Disagreements
|
AGREEMENTS |
DISAGREEMENTS |
|
No Fundamental Right to Marry —Left to Parliament |
Non-Heterosexual Couples’ Right to Enter into a Union
|
|
Special Marriage Act cannot be interpreted Gender Neutrally — Left to Parliament |
right of unmarried couples (including queer couples) to jointly adopt a child
|
|
Transgender Persons and Intersex Persons have Right to Marry under existing laws including Personal Laws |
|
|
Committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Secretary must be constituted to define scope of the entitlements of queer couples who are in Unions |
AGREEMENTS
No Fundament Right to Marry
All 5 judges unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry. Here’s what each judgment said on the issue:
CJI Chandrachud who elaborately dealt with the issue in his 247 pages long verdict wrote,
“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.”
Justice Bhat, who wrote for himself and Justice Kohli, also endorsed this view in his judgment and refused to hold that a right to marry automatically flows in the manner from the provisions of Part III which the petitioner asserts.
“There cannot be a per se assertion that there exists an unqualified right to marry which requires treatment as a fundamental freedom.”
Justice Kaul and Justice Narasimha, who wrote their separate opinions, were also in complete agreement with this opinion.
Gender Neutral Interpretation of Special Marriage Act
It was sought by the Petitioners that if the Court finds that a provision is contrary to Part III of the Constitution, (1) it shall declare that it is void, or (2) read it down (by deleting phrases) or read words in (by adding or substituting phrases) to save it from being declared void.
CJI Chandrachud wrote,
“If the SMA is held void for excluding same-sex couples, it would take India back to the pre-independence era were two persons of different religions and caste were unable to celebrate love in the form of marriage. 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 Article 13 of the Constitution courts to choose between eradicating one form of discrimination and prejudice at the cost of permitting another. If this Court takes the second approach and reads words into the provisions of the SMA and provisions of other allied laws such as the ISA and HSA, it would in effect be entering into the realm of the legislature.”
Justice Bhat agreed and said that the exclusion of non-heterosexual couples from the fold of SMA cannot be held to have resulted in its ceasing to have any rationale, and thus becoming discriminatory in operation.
On the aspect of Gender Neutral interpretation of SMA, he said that,
“Gender neutral interpretation, much like many seemingly progressive aspirations, may not really be equitable at times and can result in women being exposed to unintended vulnerability, especially when genuine attempts are made to achieve a balance, in a social order that traditionally was tipped in favour of cis-heterosexual men.”
Further, if the provisions of SMA are to be construed as gender neutral (such as persons or spouses, in substitution of wife and husband) as the petitioners propose, it would be possible for a cis-woman’s husband to file a case or create a narrative to manipulate the situation.
“Gender neutral interpretation of existing laws, therefore, would complicate an already exhausting path to justice for women and leave room for the perpetrator to victimise them. A law is not merely meant to look good on paper; but is an effective tool to remedy a perceived injustice, addressed after due evaluation about its necessity. A law which was consciously created and fought for, by women cannot, therefore, by an interpretive sleight be diluted.”
All judges agreed that it was a matter impinging on policy and hence, the Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review must steer clear of such matters which fall in the legislative domain.
Transgender Persons and Intersex Persons’ Right to Marry
Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships as well as Intersex persons who identify as either male or female have the right to marry under existing law including personal laws which regulate marriage.
Committee to define scope of the entitlements of queer couples who are in Unions
During the course of arguments, Mr Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General had assured that the Union Government will constitute a Committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Secretary for the purpose of defining and elucidating the scope of the entitlements of queer couples who are in unions. Taking note of this assurance, the Court directed that the Committee to undertake this exercise after taking into consideration the views of the concerned representatives of all stakeholders, and all States and Union Territories and that 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.
The CJI enumerated following factors to be considered by the Committee:
- Enabling partners in a queer relationship
- to be treated as a part of the same family for the purposes of a ration card; and
- to have the facility of a joint bank account with the option to name the partner as a nominee, in case of death;
- 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;
- Jail visitation rights and the right to access the body of the deceased partner and arrange the last rites; and
-
Legal consequences such as succession rights, maintenance, financial benefits such as under the Income Tax Act 1961, rights flowing from employment such as gratuity and family pension and insurance.
DISAGREEMENTS
Right to enter into a Union
Majority View
While the minority view observed that while there is no express fundamental right to marry, there is a right or freedom to enter into a union, the Majority view held that there is indeed a right — i.e. a ‘right to relationship’ which falls within Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bhat, J, in his judgment for himself and Kohli, J, wrote that,
“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.”
Narasimha, J in his judgment highlighted that CJI Chandrachud has classified that status of two persons in relationship: (a) ‘relationships’ which do not have legal consequences, (b) ‘unions’ which have legal consequences and marriages. However, as per him, the Court would violate the doctrine of Separation of Powers if it will positively mandate the State to grant recognition or legal status to ‘unions’ from which benefits will flow, that the doctrine of separation of powers is violated.
“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.”
The majority was, hence, of the view that it is for the legislature and executive to deliberate upon this aspect.
In this regard, Bhat, J observed that that the State may choose from a number of policy outcomes; they may make all marriage and family related laws gender neutral, or they may create a separate SMA-like statute in gender neutral terms to give the queer community an avenue for marriage, they may pass an Act creating civil unions, or a domestic partnership legislation, among many other alternatives.
Minority View
CJI Chandrachud and Kaul, J held that the word “sex” in Article 15 of the Constitution includes within its fold other markers of identity which are related to sex and gender such as “sexual orientation”. Thus, a restriction on the right to enter into a union based on sexual orientation would violate Article 15 of the Constitution.
They also refused to hold that permitting non-heterosexual unions would lead to allowing incestuous, polyandrous, and polygamous unions for all communities (the personal laws of some religious and trial communities currently permit polygamy or polyandry). The restriction on the ground of sexual orientation will violate Article 15 of the Constitution.
Kaul, J, who dealt with the aspect of non-heterosexual couples entering into a Union, wrote that it would be misconceived to claim that non-heterosexual unions are only a facet of the modern social milieu.
He observed that the legal recognition of non-heterosexual unions can challenge culturally ordained gender roles even in heterosexual relationships as in such a union, both partners are not limited by extant gender norms to shape their relationship, including the division of labour. Further, the legal recognition will aid social acceptance, which in turn increases queer participation in public spaces.
Quoting the song of Bon Jovi, Kaul, J said
“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.””
Though he agreed that there are multifarious interpretive difficulties in reading down the SMA to include marriages between non-heterosexual relationships as enumerated by CJI Chandrachud and Bhat, J and that tinkering with the scope of marriage under the SMA can have a cascading effect across these disparate laws, he also went on to state that,
“I believe that this moment presents an opportunity of reckoning with this historical injustice and casts a collective duty upon all constitutional institutions to take affirmative steps to remedy the discrimination. Thus, the next step in due course, would be to create an edifice of governance that would give meaningful realization to the right to enter into a union, whether termed as marriage or a union.”
Adoption Rights
Majority View
The Majority agreed with the fact that all marriages may not provide a stable home, and that a couple tied together in marriage are not a ‘morally superior choice’, or per se make better parents as there is no formula for a guaranteed stable household. Undoubtedly, what children require is a safe space, love, care, and commitment — which is also possible by an individual by themselves, or a couple— married or unmarried.
However, it could not bring itself to agree with the reading down of the law to include all unmarried couples. Bhat, J explained it his judgment that Parliament has made the legislative choice of including only ‘married’ couples for joint adoption (i.e., where two parents are legally responsible), arises from the reality of all other laws wherein protections and entitlements, flow from the institution of marriage. To read down ‘marital’ status as proposed, may have deleterious impacts, that only the legislature and executive, could remedy — making this, much like the discussion on interpretation of SMA, an outcome that cannot be achieved by the judicial pen.
The Majority, however, noticed that there is a discriminatory impact on queer couples, perhaps most visible through this example of adoption and its regulation, that requires urgent state intervention. Hence, while the Regulation 5(3) of the CARA Regulations cannot be held void on the grounds urged, however, 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 otherwise available to adopted children of married couples. This aspect needs further consideration, for which the court is not the appropriate forum.
Minority view
Finding Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations to be ultra vires the JJ Act and Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, CJI Chandrachud and Kaul, J read down the regulation to exclude the word “marital” and held that the reference to a ‘couple’ in Regulation 5 includes both married and unmarried couples as well as queer couples, thereby allowing unmarried couples (including queer couples) to jointly adopt a child.
In 2022, CARA issued an Office Memorandum stipulating that a single prospective adoptive parent in a live-in relationship will be ineligible to adopt a child. This Circular was also found to be disproportionately impacting the queer community and hence, held violative of Article 15.
It further stated that 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.
[Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348 , decided on 17.10.2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
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. 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. 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. 5 Mr. Kailash Ram, Adv. 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. 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. 7 Ms. Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Adv. 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. 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
Buy Constitution of India HERE
