The Legislative Council’s Rejection of the Civil Partnership Bill and Its Constitutional Implications for the Rule of Law in Hong Kong

In Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice , the Court of Final Appeal held that the absence of a legal framework to recognise same-sex relationships in Hong Kong was a violation of the right to privacy and family life protected under Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The government’s Registration of Same-Sex Partnership Bill (the Bill) introducing such a legal framework was, however, rejected by the Legislative Council (LegCo) in September 2025. The government continues to have a legal obligation to implement Sham Tsz Kit and that obligation does not lapse merely because LegCo rejected the Bill. Legislators’ justification to reject the bill based on ‘public opposition’ is dubious and inconsistent with the results of surveys showing a significant shift of public opinion in support of same-sex marriages from 2013 to 2023. The legislature also lacks democratic legitimacy especially given the electoral reforms of 2021, resulting in a large majority of legislators returned by small franchise constitutencies and all candidates being vetted for their patriotism. In this political context, judicial review is transformed from a counter-majoritarian device into a counter-authoritarian safeguard. LegCo’s rejection of the Bill does not bring the issue to an end, and same-sex couples will continue to experience daily hardships and inequalities. Incremental legislative or administrative reforms and clear policy statements protecting same-sex relationships could advance partial compliance with the Court’s order

Appeal · Democracy · Legislature · Legitimacy · Obligation · Parliamentary sovereignty · Politics · Rule of law · Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics · LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy · Reproductive Health and Technologies