Author: Zinniia Manna, Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
To the Point
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023) is important mainly because it shows the gap between legal recognition and social needs. The Court accepted that queer couples have the right to live together with dignity and without any interference. However, it refused to allow same-sex marriage or even civil unions under the Special Marriage Act. Since marriage in India is the main way to get legal benefits like inheritance, insurance, adoption and medical decision-making, this decision leaves queer couples without the protections that most families enjoy. The judgment therefore reflects progress in words, but not in actual rights.
Abstract
The petitioners said that not allowing same-sex couples to get married goes against the Constitution because everyone should be treated equally and without discrimination. They also said that every person has the freedom to choose how they want to live and deserves to live with dignity. They referred to earlier important cases where the Court protected the right to privacy, recognised gender identity, and ended the criminalisation of homosexuality. In this case, two judges agreed that same-sex couples should at least have civil unions. But the majority of judges decided that this is something the Parliament should make a law about, not the Court. Because of this, the judgment supports constitutional values in words, but real change for LGBTQ+ people is still delayed in everyday life.
Use of Legal Jargon
The judgment highlights a conflict between two approaches to equality. The majority followed formal equality, saying the law treats everyone the same because anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex. But this ignores the reality that queer people are excluded. The minority followed substantive equality, saying the Constitution must protect different identities and challenge social inequalities. The case also raises the idea of transformative constitutionalism, meaning the Constitution should help change unfair social structures. However, the Court chose judicial restraint, leaving reforms for the legislature instead of interpreting the law to include queer couples.
The Proof
The impact of the judgment is seen in daily life. Without marriage recognition, queer couples struggle with hospital access, home rentals, property rights and financial benefits. The Court also upheld rules that only married couples can adopt jointly, which harms queer families and children who may live with them. The decision keeps the traditional Indian idea of family per se as a man and a woman with children. Trans and gender-diverse people face even more challenges due to document and identity issues. Other countries like South Africa, the United States, and Taiwan have moved ahead with marriage equality through strong judicial action. India, however, chose to wait for Parliament to act.
Case Laws
The legal foundation of the arguments comes from earlier cases.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) confirmed that privacy includes choices about personal relationships.
NALSA v. Union of India (2014) recognised the rights of transgender persons to self-identify their gender.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) protected same-sex couples from criminalisation and emphasised constitutional morality. In comparison, cases like
Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie (South Africa, 2005) and Obergefell v. Hodges (USA, 2015) granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, showing a more proactive role by courts.
Conclusion
The Supriyo judgment shows that India has taken steps toward accepting queer relationships, but equality is still incomplete. The Court recognised dignity but did not provide the legal status needed to protect queer families. By asking Parliament to decide, the judgment delays necessary reforms. For true equality, India needs laws that allow civil unions or marriage for queer partners, equal adoption rights, and protection from discrimination in daily life. Until then, queer citizens will continue to face barriers that heterosexual couples do not, and the promise of equality under the Constitution will remain only partly fulfilled.
FAQs
Is there a fundamental right to marry?
No. The Court held that marriage is a statutory, not a constitutional right.
Did the Court allow civil unions?
The minority wanted them, the majority said it must come only from Parliament.
Can queer couples cohabit legally?
Yes, the Court reaffirmed full protection for consensual adult relationships.
What about adoption rights?
Joint adoption remains restricted to married couples, excluding queer families.
What reforms are needed?
Civil union or gender-neutral marriage laws
Equal adoption rights
Administrative recognition in health, housing & employment
Protection of queer family structures against state and societal discrimination
