Author : Harsh Tewari, Bennett University
To the point
The Supreme Court’s decision in the 2023 case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Others v. Union of India marked an important turning point in India’s legal system. The question in this case was whether Indian law should permit same-sex marriages. A group of people petitioned the court to grant queer couples the right to marry, specifically under the 1954 Special Marriage Act. Five judges heard the case, with D.Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, sitting at the head of the bench.
For the time being, the Court turned down same-sex marriage. But the judges did talk a lot about important ideas like freedom to choose one’s partner, equality, and the rights of LGBTQ+ people. They added that the Parliament, or the lawmakers, should establish marriage laws rather than the courts.
The Court stated that queer people have the right to love, live together, and form relationships, despite banning same-sex marriage. However, the ruling also demonstrated that there remains a disconnect between the actual lives of queer people and what the Constitution guarantees. The government is now in charge of passing laws that guarantee equality for all.
Use of Legal Jargon
Term
Definition (Simple)
Ratio Decidendi
The main reason or rule based on which the court gives its judgment.
Obiter Dicta
Extra comments or opinions by judges that are not part of the main decision, but may guide future cases.
Stare Decisis
The rule that courts should follow their own previous decisions to keep the law stable.
Constitutional Morality
Acting according to the values of the Constitution like equality, dignity, and freedom, even if society disagrees.
Judicial Review
The power of courts to check if a law made by Parliament or government is against the Constitution.
Judicial Activism
When courts actively step in to protect people’s rights or fix wrong laws or actions by the government.
Judicial Restraint
When courts avoid getting involved in things that should be decided by Parliament or the government.
Separation of Powers
The idea that the powers of making laws, running the country, and judging should stay with different branches of government.
Pari Materia
When two or more laws are related or talk about the same topic, they should be read together.
Ultra Vires
If something is ‘beyond the powers’ given by law, it is called ultra vires and becomes invalid.
Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21)
Basic rights like equality, no discrimination, freedom of speech, and right to life that every person in India has.
Horizontal vs. Vertical Application of Rights
Vertical is when rights protect us from the government; Horizontal is when rights apply between private people too.
Personal Laws
Religious laws that control things like marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
Special Marriage Act (SMA)
A law that allows people of any religion or different religions to marry in a civil, non-religious way.
Hindu Marriage Act
A law that controls marriage rules for Hindus, including Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains.
Locus Standi
The right of a person to bring a case to court; it means you are directly connected to the issue.
Queer Identity
A broad term for people who are not straight or don’t follow traditional ideas of gender and sexuality.
Gender Identity
How a person feels about their own gender—like male, female, both, or neither.
Sexual Orientation
Who a person is attracted to—like people of the same gender, different gender, or both.
Non-binary
People who don’t fully identify as just male or female.
Transgender
People whose gender identity is different from the gender they were assigned at birth.
Societal Morality vs. Constitutional Morality
Societal Morality is what society believes is right; Constitutional Morality is what the Constitution says is right.
Discrimination
Treating someone unfairly or unequally because of their identity, like gender, caste, or sexuality.
Affirmative Action
Special steps or benefits given to weaker groups to help make society more equal.
Substantive Equality
Treating people differently if needed to make sure everyone gets equal chances in real life.
Formal Equality
Treating everyone the same by law, whether or not they have the same opportunities in real life.
The Proof
A historic constitutional challenge seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages was put before the Supreme Court of India in the case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1340. Because it only accepted unions between a “man” and a “woman,” the petitioners claimed that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), which was passed to encourage interfaith and intercaste civil marriages, was discriminatory. They argued that this statutory language violated the fundamental rights of queer couples guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution by except them from civil marriage based only on their sexual preference.
The Court mostly limited its investigation to the SMA, despite submissions involving other personal laws (like the Muslim Personal Law or the Hindu Marriage Act). A strong judicial trajectory upholding the rights of queer people in India came before this constitutional litigation, so it was not an isolated incident.
The Court recognized transgender people as an independent “third gender” in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), (2014) 5 SCC 438, upholding their right to self-identification of gender as an inherent component of dignity under Article 21. The Supreme Court next determined in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, that the right to privacy was an essential component of the right to life and liberty, which included the ability to make decisions regarding personal matters on one’s own.
Following this, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, established that sexual orientation is protected by the constitution by decriminalizing consensual same-sex relationships through the reading down of Section 377 IPC. The doctrinal foundation for the call for full marriage equality were established by these cases taken together.
The Union of India rejected the petition in spite of this progressive jurisprudence, arguing that Parliament, not the legal system, should make any significant changes to the country’s long-standing understanding of “marriage,” which is a heterosexual institution. The State stressed that the judiciary’s ability to change statutory schemes that were tightly connected with social, religious, and cultural practices was constrained by the doctrine of separation of powers.
As a result, the Court had to deal with significant constitutional issues. First, whether same-sex couples were entitled to marry whoever they wanted under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, nondiscrimination, and dignity. The second question was if the Court could apply a gender-neutral interpretation of the SMA without infringing on legislative authority. Third, if the Court could develop the idea of civil unions as a transitional step; and fourth, if recognizing queer marriages would have a cascading effect on other laws pertaining to inheritance, succession, and adoption.
In a 3:2 ruling, the Supreme Court refused same-sex marriages under the current legal system. Nonetheless, every judge agreed that the LGBTQ community people have equal constitutional rights to live with dignity, form relationships, and cohabitate without facing discrimination from the government.
In agreement with Justice Kaul, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud recognized that disputing queer couples the ability to marry continued systemic discrimination. Nonetheless, he maintained that acknowledging marriage equality necessitated revising a number of SMA provisions, which was essentially legislative work. He argued that courts must uphold legislative prerogatives by citing the constitutional principle of “institutional comity.” However, he directed the Union to form a high-level committee to investigate providing queer couples in social benefits, financial rights, and civil rights.
Justice Kaul agreed upon, but he also highlighted that personal liberty under Article 21 and decisional autonomy under Puttaswamy included selecting a life partner. He called on the government to take proactive steps to raise awareness and lessen homophobia.
Separately concurring, Justices Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha reaffirmed that legislative discussion should lead to major reforms to deeply ingrained social institutions. They emphasized judicial restraint and the separation of powers doctrine, cautioning that court intervention in redefining statutory marriage would have unforeseen consequences.
As a secular civil law, Justice S.R. Bhat (partially dissenting) felt that the SMA could be interpreted gender-neutrally by replacing words like “husband” and “wife” with “spouse.” He made the case that laws needs to reflect changing ideas of justice and equality by citing the interpretive principle of constitutional morality. The idea of “civil unions” was also criticized by Justice Bhat as being fundamentally discriminatory and potentially subjecting queer couples to a system of “separate but equal,” which is reminiscent of outdated legal structures that courts around the world have historically overturned.
The Supriyo ruling reflects judicial prudence as well as advancement. Unquestionably, the affirmation of queer rights to dignity and partnership is a significant step. However, academics and activists have criticized the Court for missing a constitutional chance by refusing to require marriage equality. Many contend that it is the judiciary’s duty to spearhead transformative constitutionalism, particularly when it comes to minority rights.
Furthermore, there was ambiguity surrounding the acceptance of queer relationships in religious contexts due to the avoidance of discussing personal laws. To close the gap between constitutional assurances and lived realities, persistent lobbying will be required as legislative inertia continues to be a major barrier.
In contrast to India’s deferential stance, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly proclaimed same-sex marriage as a fundamental right in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Supriyo ultimately defers to Parliament to carry out the constitutional mandate of LGBTQ+ citizens’ equality and dignity.
Abstract
In this article, the Supreme Court of India’s decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1340—a landmark case pertaining to the legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples—is critically examined. Citing parliamentary supremacy, the five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously rejected the idea of giving marriage equality through legal analysis of current laws, specifically the Special Marriage Act of 1954. The Court directed the Union Government to establish a committee to define rights and benefits for these couples, but it refrained from formally recognizing their unions as “marriage,” even though it upheld the fundamental rights of queer people to equality, dignity, and cohabitation.
This analysis examines the bench’s conflicting arguments, highlighting the conflict between the need for constitutional morality and judicial restraint. It contends that even though the ruling recognizes the existence and rights of queer interactions, it ultimately leaves the entire realization of marriage equality to the legislative branch, creating a significant gap in India’s efforts to achieve substantive equality as well as complete non-discrimination for LGBTQ+ people.
Case Laws
In Supriyo v. Union of India, a petition alleging a violation of constitutional rights (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21) is submitted for the recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
Union of India v. Navtej Singh Johar (2018)→ Declared that the fundamental rights to equality and dignity protect consensual homosexual relations, overturning Section 377 IPC.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India → affirmed equal treatment and dignity according to the Constitution; understood transgender people’s right to self-identify as gender nonconforming.
Union of India v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), 2017 → declared the right to privacy, which includes sexual orientation and personal relationship autonomy, has been declared a fundamental right.
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010)
→ Defended live-in relationships; held that personal choices in relationships deserve constitutional protection regardless of societal disapproval.
Conclusion
In India’s fight for LGBTQ+ equality, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Supriyo v. Union of India is a significant but conflicting moment. In its ruling, the Court declined to legalize same-sex marriage, stating that Parliament should pass such legislation. The judges did clarify, though, that LGBT individuals have the right to live with respect, pick their partners, and not be subjected to unfair treatment. Additionally, the Court ordered the government to establish a committee to look into granting same-sex couples legal rights and benefits. However, the ruling also revealed a missed chance. Despite the reality that interpreting the Special Marriage Act in a way that was gender-neutral could have advanced equality for same-sex couples, the Court decided against doing so. Parliament is now in charge of the actual progress. The promise of equality in India’s Constitution will not be fulfilled until lawmakers enact a suitable law granting same-sex couples full rights, whether by means of marriage or civil unions. Legal changes as well as ongoing social and activist efforts to promote equality and complete acceptance are essential for the development of LGBTQ+ rights in India.
FAQs
Q1: Was same-sex marriage created legal in India by the Supreme Court?
No, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against allowing same-sex marriage, arguing that Parliament should enact legislation on the subject.
Q2: What does the Supreme Court establish as a “civil union”? What distinguishes it from marriage?
According to the Court, a civil union is a legal structure that provides same-sex couples rights and advantages akin to wedding but without the formal title. Its nomenclature and possible full range of social and legal recognition, which frequently goes beyond clear statutory provisions are among the primary ways in which it differs from marriage.
Q3: Is it now acceptable for same-sex couples to adopt children in India?
The issue of adoption by same-sex couples was specifically left out of the ruling. Although same-sex couples as a group cannot be specifically allowed to adopt, the Central Adoption Resource Authority’s (CARA) current guidelines generally allow adoption by single people of any sexual orientation. After the judgment, there are still unanswered questions in this area.
Q4: What arrives next for same-sex relationships to be recognized by law in India?
The Indian Parliament will take the next big step. In order to give same-sex couples legal recognition and related rights, the ruling puts the burden on lawmakers to think about passing legislation that either modifies present marriage laws or creates a new framework (such as a civil union law). Public support and continued legal efforts will likely focus on legislative action.
