Author :SAMRIDHI SINGH ; COLLEGE: SHREE RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY
To the Point
In October 2023, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a historic set of petitions seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage. While the Court acknowledged the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to love, cohabit, and form partnerships, it stopped short of granting them the right to marry under Indian law. The case triggered widespread debate around constitutional morality, personal liberty, and the limits of judicial activism in transforming social structures. This article delves into the verdict, its implications, and the road ahead.
Use of Legal Jargon
Constitutional Morality – A principle urging decisions based on constitutional values, not majoritarian morality.
Transformative Constitutionalism – The use of constitutional interpretation to bring about social change.
Personal Autonomy – An element of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), which includes the right to choose one’s partner.
Judicial Restraint – The Court deferred to Parliament, showing restraint in law-making powers.
Special Marriage Act, 1954 – A secular law under which petitioners sought the right to same-sex marriage.
The Proof
The five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud delivered a 4:1 verdict in Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023). Key points include:
No fundamental right to marry was recognized under the Constitution.
The Special Marriage Act was not read down or amended to include same-sex couples.
However, the judgment recognized civil unions and the right to cohabit.
The Court emphasized the need for legislative action, suggesting Parliament must decide the issue.
Justice Chandrachud, in his dissenting opinion, supported same-sex marriages under the law.
Abstract
This article critically explores the Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage in India, focusing on the constitutional and human rights dimensions. While the verdict upheld the dignity and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals, it denied the legal recognition of marriage, leaving it to the legislature. The case reveals the tension between progressive constitutional interpretation and conservative societal norms, presenting a landmark moment in India’s ongoing struggle for equality and inclusion.
Case Laws
1. Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)
The main case where the Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriages but upheld other rights like cohabitation and civil unions.
2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
The Supreme Court decriminalized Section 377, making same-sex relations legal between consenting adults.
3. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014)
Recognized transgender individuals as the third gender and protected their fundamental rights.
4. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018)
Reiterated that the right to choose a life partner is a part of personal liberty under Article 21.
5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Held that privacy is a fundamental right, forming the base for autonomy in personal relationships.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 2023 verdict on same-sex marriage is a moment of progress and pause. While the judiciary acknowledged LGBTQ+ individuals’ dignity and rights to live together, it stopped short of recognizing marriage equality. The responsibility now shifts to Parliament, civil society, and political leadership to amend outdated laws and move towards inclusive family laws. India’s journey towards true equality remains unfinished but hopeful.
FAQ
Q1: Is same-sex marriage legal in India now?
No, the Supreme Court has not legalized same-sex marriage. However, it upheld the right of same-sex couples to cohabit and form relationships.
Q2: Can same-sex couples adopt children in India?
As of the 2023 ruling, same-sex couples are not allowed joint adoption under current laws. The Court left this issue to Parliament.
Q3: What was the petitioners’ main argument?
Petitioners argued that denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and liberty).
Q4: Did the Court strike down any laws?
No, the Court did not strike down the Special Marriage Act, nor did it modify any existing laws. It declined to read in same-sex marriage rights.
Q5: What is the next step?
The ball is now in Parliament’s court. Legislative action is needed to amend family and marriage laws to include LGBTQ+ individuals.
