The Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions against its landmark judgment declining to recognize same-sex marriages but confirming constitutional rights for the LGBTQIA+ community. The judgment, delivered in October 2023, refused to regard same-sex marriages but affirmed constitutional rights for the LGBTQIA+ community. The review petitions sought reconsideration of the refusal by the court to grant marriage equality, a stand that the bench reiterated through its order.Background of the Judgment: It was a response to the scores of petitions submitted by the litigants asserting for judicial review to be entitled to marital legal status on behalf of same-sex marriages under the prevailing law in place, the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The judgement was made, and it determined that the bar imposed by preventing the two sexes from entering marriage with each other violates the very Articles 14, 19, as well as 21 of the Indian Constitution as articles guaranteeing equality, rights of liberty and the right to life and personal dignity. The court, however, refused to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples in a split verdict. While it reiterated their rights to love, cohabit, and form relationships, the bench said that the institution of same-sex marriages needed legislation and not judicial intervention. Review Petitions and Arguments Other review petitions pointed out that the judgment further deepened discrimination against the LGBTQIA+ community because it was not yet giving them equal access to marital rights as far as inheritance, adoption, and decisions over medical interventions were concerned. The sense of urgency for judicial intervention was further argued due to an unbridgeable legislative gap on this matter. The respondents, Union Government, aver that marriage is a social institution which finds its origin in the customs and religion. Change, therefore, should be discussed and passed by Parliament. Judgment of Supreme Court on Appeal This has an assertion that reminds one of general societal consensus as necessary in legislative actions. So, the judiciary's role here remains limited in issues like these. This has made it dispel the fact that maybe it would take the side with the concerns raised by the community of LGBTQIA+; yet, the only possibility of being able to approve marriage equality lay in legislation. On its behalf, the bench cleared that in its earlier judgement it held the government to work out practical problems which the homosexual couple faces, including devising ways for joint banking, housing, and medical rights. Impact of the Rejection This judgment has sparked heated debates regarding the role of the judiciary in bringing social justice into effect. Many activists and legal scholars have argued that it delays the cause of marriage equality, leaving the LGBTQIA+ community to the mercy of structural injustices. Further opinions of the supporters of the judgment are that an abiding and widely acceptable structure of same-sex marriages is required, which could be guaranteed only by legislation. This judgment has illuminated the fact that this fragile work of judicial interference, which counter-balances legislation's discretion, can be well-observed regarding emerging social order. Marriage equality is still in wait by political sphere; all probably will be activists while calling for legislations.