Case Details

  • Case Name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India

  • Court: Supreme Court of India

  • Bench: Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

  • Date of Judgment: October 17, 2023

  • Legal Issue: Legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India

Background

The case originated from multiple petitions filed before the Supreme Court in November 2022. The petitioners, comprising LGBTQ+ activists and same-sex couples, challenged the non-recognition of same-sex marriages in India. They argued that the absence of legal recognition violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, particularly:

  1. Article 14 (Right to Equality) – They contended that denying same-sex couples the right to marry amounted to discrimination.

  2. Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) – The petitioners argued that sexual orientation should not be a basis for exclusion from marriage laws.

  3. Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) – They claimed that restricting marriage rights curtailed their personal expression and identity.

  4. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) – The petitioners emphasized that marriage is an essential aspect of dignity and autonomy, and denying this right violated their fundamental freedoms.

The case primarily focused on whether existing Indian laws, including the Special Marriage Act, 1954, could be interpreted to include same-sex marriages or whether the Parliament needed to enact new legislation.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court was tasked with examining the following questions:

  1. Does the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to marry, including for same-sex couples?

  2. Can the Special Marriage Act, 1954, be interpreted to allow same-sex marriages, or does it require legislative amendment?

  3. Does the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage laws violate fundamental rights?

  4. What legal protections should be granted to same-sex couples in India?

Arguments by the Petitioners

  • Right to Marriage as a Fundamental Right: The petitioners argued that the right to marry should not be confined to heterosexual couples and that the lack of recognition for same-sex marriages amounted to institutional discrimination.

  • Evolution of Social Norms: They pointed out that societal views on marriage have evolved and that Indian laws should reflect this progress.

  • Judicial Precedents: They cited the landmark Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) judgment, which decriminalized homosexuality, to argue that marriage equality was a logical next step.

  • Discrimination in Legal Benefits: They highlighted that same-sex couples were denied crucial rights, such as inheritance, adoption, taxation benefits, and medical decision-making.

Arguments by the Government

  • Legislative Prerogative: The Union of India argued that legalizing same-sex marriages was a matter for Parliament and not the judiciary.

  • Heterosexual Basis of Marriage Laws: The government contended that all Indian marriage laws—whether under personal laws or the Special Marriage Act—were traditionally based on heterosexual unions.

  • Cultural and Religious Sensitivities: The government claimed that marriage was deeply rooted in cultural and religious traditions in India, and altering its definition required broad societal consensus.

  • No Fundamental Right to Marry: The government asserted that while the right to life and liberty is fundamental, marriage as a legal institution is governed by statutory laws, not constitutional guarantees.

Supreme Court Verdict

On October 17, 2023, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict, declining to grant same-sex couples the right to marry but recognizing the need for legal protections. The key observations were:

  1. No Fundamental Right to Marry
    The Court held that the Constitution does not explicitly recognize marriage as a fundamental right. While personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to form relationships, marriage remains a statutory right governed by specific laws.

  2. Special Marriage Act Cannot Be Amended by Courts
    The Court ruled that the Special Marriage Act, 1954, was drafted explicitly for heterosexual couples, and expanding its scope to include same-sex couples required legislative intervention.

  3. Recognition of LGBTQ+ Rights
    While denying marriage rights, the Court acknowledged the discrimination faced by same-sex couples and directed the Union government to explore legal protections for them in areas such as:
    • Inheritance rights

    • Joint bank accounts

    • Hospital visitation rights

    • Medical decision-making authority

    • Next-of-kin status

  4. Formation of a Committee for LGBTQ+ Rights
    The Court directed the Union Government to form a high-level committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary, to examine the issues faced by same-sex couples and suggest ways to provide them with legal rights and benefits. However, the judgment did not set a timeline for the committee’s recommendations.

Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Chandrachud:

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented on certain aspects and made the following significant observations:

  1. Marriage is an Evolving Institution: The Chief Justice argued that marriage is not static and has undergone transformations over centuries. He noted that laws should reflect changing social realities.

  2. Transgender Rights: The Court affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws.

  3. State’s Duty to Protect LGBTQ+ Rights: While acknowledging that Parliament must legislate on the issue, he stressed that the state has an obligation to ensure equality and non-discrimination for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Aftermath and Review Petition

Following the judgment, a review petition was filed, arguing that the ruling was inconsistent and contradictory. The petitioners claimed that while the Court recognized discrimination, it failed to provide immediate relief. However, on January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, upholding its original decision.

Conclusion

The Supriyo v. Union of India judgment is a landmark case in India’s LGBTQ+ rights movement. While it did not grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, it recognized their struggles and urged the government to provide legal protections. The verdict underscores the judiciary’s limitations in matters of social legislation, emphasizing that marriage equality must be addressed through Parliamentary reform rather than judicial intervention. The decision has sparked discussions on the future of LGBTQ+ rights in India and has increased pressure on lawmakers to consider comprehensive legal reforms.