We're now wrapping up our live coverage of the same-sex marriage ruling. But we'll continue to bring you more on this story - for starters, here's a comprehensive piece that unpacks the events of this day.

This page was brought to you by reporters in India including Zoya Mateen, Meryl Sebastian, Cherylann Mollan, Nikhila Henry, Devang Shah, Nikita Mandhani, Antariksh Jain, Anshul Verma, Bimal Thankachan, Soutik Biswas, Samira Hussain, Divya Arya, Suchitra Mohanty and Umang Poddar. It was edited by Geeta Pandey, Sharanya Hrishikesh and Vikas Pandey.

While the overall judgement has disappointed many LGBTQ+ activists, a point that gave some joy was the judges’ comments on homosexuality not being an urban or elitist concept.

Saravanan and his partner Kaviyarasan, who now live in the southern city of Chennai, grew up in small villages.

"Our sexual orientation has nothing to do with our backgrounds," they told BBC Tamil.

They add that there are thousands of LGBTQ+ couples in rural India who are afraid to come out to their families because of conservative attitudes towards sex and sexuality.

They hope the government, while considering the court's recommendations, would also include lessons in schools to educate people about the LGBTQ+ community.

"This would help develop a safe environment for all of us," they say.

Abhay Dang and Supriyo Chakraborty are two of more than a dozen petitioners who wanted same-sex marriages to become legal.

Today's judgement has disappointed them but they are not giving up the fight.

They speak to the BBC's Devang Shah and Anshul Verma

The bench has accepted the government’s suggestion that it set up a committee to look into the problems faced by the LGBTQ+ community, particularly same-sex couples. The minority judgement also mentioned specific points that this committee could explore - though the government won’t be legally bound to follow this. We don’t know much about the committee yet, apart from the fact that it will be headed by the cabinet secretary, India’s topmost bureaucrat.

We’ll have to wait for the judgement to see if the judges have said anything more about the composition of the committee and - more importantly - whether there is a deadline for it to submit recommendations. There’s also the worry that this committee could take its own sweet time to take any action.

One point that got some attention was the judges' comments on transgender people's right to marry.

The Supreme Court clarified that transgender people in India already had the legal right to marry - as long as they married a person of the opposite sex.

"A transgender man can marry a transgender woman. If a transgender person wishes to marry a heterosexual person, their marriage will be recognised if one is a man and another a woman," the chief justice said.

If such a marriage was not allowed, he said, it would violate the Transgender Act.

During the hearing, the petitioners had pointed out that not being able to marry meant that LGBTQ+ people couldn't access many basic rights such as opening a joint bank account, receiving pensions and taking a health insurance policy, among other things.

In the final verdict, the judges acknowledged their demands but seemed to have taken slightly differing positions.

While Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul said it was the government's duty to provide LGBTQ+ people "a bouquet of rights and privileges" that are available to heterosexual couples, Justice Bhat disagreed and said the "state cannot be obligated" to do that.

All five of them, however, agreed to accept the government's proposal to set up an expert panel to look into granting LGBTQ+ people more rights.

At the centre of the hearings was the Special Marriage Act (SMA) - which allows marriages between people from different religions, castes and countries.

From the start, the judges had said they would not wade into religious personal laws that govern much of India's laws around marriage, adoption and inheritance.

They instead said they were open to looking at whether tweaking some words in the SMA - such as replacing man and woman with spouse or husband and wife - would do the trick.

But the bench finally said today that making changes to the SMA was not the judiciary's domain.

There was some hope that the court would allow civil union, with Chief Justice Chandrachud saying that "benefits that married people enjoy are fundamental to life with dignity to a great extent and hence, ought to be extended to unmarried same-sex couples in union as well".

Justice Kaul backed him, but in the end it remained the minority view and the issue was left for parliament to decide.

As we reported earlier, Chief Justice Chandrachud said that queer and unmarried couples could jointly adopt a child - raising hopes among the LGBTQ+ community, especially for some of the petitioners who are raising children together.

Justice SK Kaul supported it and said that India's adoption laws should be changed to include the rights of queer people.

But three other judges on the bench opposed the suggestions, saying it couldn't happen.

Since the majority of judges on the five-judge bench were against it, it's clear that adoption remains out of bounds for same-sex couples.

There was a lot of confusion after the judges finished reading their remarks as a clear summary was not provided at the end.

The BBC has spoken to legal experts to help break down the verdict.

So, let's tackle the first (and big) question - why same-sex marriage has not been legalised.

As the judges on the bench read out their differing decisions on Tuesday, there were a few points on which they all seemed to agree – the key one being that it was within parliament’s domain to make law and the judges could only interpret them.

Which essentially meant that they could not legalise same-sex marriage.

Image source, Courtesy Pawan Dhall

Pawan Dhall, an LGBTQ+ rights activist in Kolkata city, was among the 15 intrepid marchers to participate in what was later called the first Pride walk in India. These were his thoughts after the verdict:

"It was a close shave - 3:2 majority verdict which went against marriage equality. But I think it would have been good if civil union [was allowed].

Why I am not terribly disappointed is that I have seen that as a movement - or movements - we have moved away from the track.

We should have been building up a case of non-discrimination on various aspects like insurance policies, bank accounts, home loans. These are practical things that make life easier on a day-to-day basis, and we should have been fighting these battles before taking on marriage.

Because not everyone wants to get married, many people do want to be in a relationship and many just want to remain single. Why should we get our rights only through marriage?"

Devang Shah
Reporting from Supreme Court

LGBTQ activists say they are disappointed with the ruling. But religious groups who oppose same-sex marriages have thanked the court for the verdict.

Here is the BBC's Devang Shah with some quick reactions from the court.

Harish Iyer, an LGBTQ+ activist who was one of the petitioners in the case, says he has bittersweet feelings about the judgement.

"Though the verdict was not in our favour, the court made so many observations which were in our favour," he told the ANI news agency.

He is also hopeful that the government will give more rights to LGTBQ+ people.

Either way, he says, this is not over yet.

"A war is underway. It might take sometime but we will get societal equality."

Samira Hussain
Reporting from Supreme Court

Image source, Getty Images

The decision is a let-down for the country’s LGBTQ+ community. Activists who gathered outside the court to hear the verdict are deflated.

Everyone had huddled around mobile phones to hear the judges' remarks. As the verdict became clearer, people were quiet, their silence indicating their disappointment.

We are also hearing from people who welcome the court's verdict.

Adish Aggarwala, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, told reporters that he was happy that the court had accepted the government's argument that it does not have the power to legalise same-sex union.

"That right only rests with the Indian parliament and we are glad that the court agrees with us," he added.

Before the verdict, Mr Aggarwala had told reporters that allowing same-sex marriages would not be a good idea as it is "not in accordance with the system prevalent in India".

Devang Shah
Reporting from Supreme Court

In the morning, there was an air of hope and excitement outside the Supreme Court among petitioners, LGBTQ+ activists and allies who had gathered to hear the judgement.

But as the judges finished reading their remarks, their upbeat mood turned into disappointment. While many said that they felt let down, others hoped that the government would indeed provide them more rights and benefits as directed by the court.

Reactions are pouring in after the Supreme Court refused to legalise same-sex marriage in India.

"This feels almost tokenistic," says Archit Dutt, a gay student in Delhi.

"We pay just the same amount of taxes as heterosexual people, struggle just as hard if not more, but we've still been reduced to second-class citizens."

Pia Chanda who's been in a same-sex relationship for 34 years, told the BBC that "the Supreme Court is playing passing the parcel".

However, lawyer and author Tanushree Bhalla, says she "bows to the majesty of the court".

"We do hope, however, the government will heed the directions in the judgment and take the necessary steps to end the discrimination that LGBTQ+ persons face every day in law and life," she adds.

"Till then we hope law and society too shall evolve."

India's Supreme Court has failed to legalise same-sex marriage, saying it does not have the power to do so.

The court instead accepted the government's offer to set up a panel to consider granting social and legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

The court had heard 21 petitions in April and May from same-sex couples and activists who said that not being able to marry made them "second-class citizens".

The ruling will dash the hopes of India's LGBTQ+ population, believed to number in the tens of millions.

The government and religious leaders had strongly opposed same-sex unions, saying they were against Indian culture.

We just heard from Justice S Ravindra Bhat.

He said that he agreed with the Chief Justice that queerness is neither an urban nor an elitist concept and that the judiciary cannot add words into the Special Marriage Act.

However, he disagreed with several other points, including giving LGBTQ+ couples the right to jointly adopt children.

Justice Bhat added that LGBTQ+ people have the right to choose their partners under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"But if it is agreed that marriage is a social institution, does it mean that any section of the society which wishes for the creation of a like institution, can seek relief by court?"

He said that the court cannot create a legal framework for queer couples as that is the job of the legislature.

"The state cannot be obligated to recognise the bouquet of rights flowing from such a union," Justice Bhat added.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the second senior-most judge on the bench, said same-sex relationships had been recognised from antiquity, not just in terms of sexual activities but as relationships that fostered love, emotional support and mutual care.

"Marriage as an institution developed historically and served various social functions. It was only later in its long history that it came to be legally recognised and codified. However, these laws regulated only one type of social historical union, that is the heterosexual union," he said.

This moment, he said, "is an opportunity for us to remedy the historical injustice and discrimination [against LGBTQ+ people] and thus governance is needed to grant rights to such unions or marriages".

Justice Kaul agreed with Chief Justice Chandrachud that the state must ensure that queer couples did not face discrimination in accessing basic needs.

But, he added, that "the court cannot grant LGBTQ+ people the right to marry as that is a legislative exercise".