Examining the Supreme Court’s cautious verdict on same-sex marriage and the future of LGBTQ+ rights in India.
Author- Jiya Kaur Sahi, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
In a historic judgment rendered on October 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of India ruled on granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages in Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India. This ruling came five years after the historic Navtej Singh Johar verdict that removed homosexuality from being criminalized in India. Hopes were high that the Court would be taking the next logical step in granting the LGBTQIA+ community full legal equality — the right to marry. But while confirming queer people’s constitutional right to love, cohabit, and live with dignity, the Court unanimously chose not to give legal sanction to same-sex marriages.
The bench, however, was split in its rationale but agreed on restraint. The Court recognized that discrimination against queer couples existed but stressed that making law on same-sex marriage is a matter for Parliament, not the courts. The verdict, while progressive in spirit, dismayed many for its failure to deliver immediate succour. It had raised searching questions regarding constitutional morality, separation of powers, and the role of the judiciary in defining civil rights.
This piece aims to critically examine the Supreme Court’s ruling through a constitutional and legal perspective. It discusses the rationale behind the judges’ decision, its implications on the LGBTQ+ movement, and whether or not the ruling is a temporary reverse or a cautious advance toward ultimate equality. Though marriage is far from within reach, the ruling kept the dialogue alive — far from denial, but a delay.
The legal discussion in India regarding marriage equality is based on constitutional mandates and developing jurisprudence. This article includes a variety of legal definitions to provide analytic depth and accuracy. Important constitutional rights like Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), Article 19 (Freedom of Expression and Association), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) are interpreted on the principles of substantive equality, non-arbitrariness, and non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court’s focus on constitutional morality — the principle that the values of the Constitution should dominate current social or religious norms — is at the heart of its argument. Principles such as reasonable classification, horizontal application of rights, and personal liberty are employed to determine whether queer people are discriminatorily denied access to the institution of marriage.
The judgment is also examined using wider jurisprudential principles. The Court’s adherence to judicial restraint and doctrine of separation of powers is a reflection of its unwillingness to indulge in judicial legislation, instead leaving the task to Parliament. The article is also focused on the application of transformative constitutionalism, a doctrine supporting an evolving and inclusive interpretation of the Constitution that guards minority rights and promotes social justice. Legal provisions like personal laws, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and associate civil enactments are analysed to demonstrate the legislative vacuum regarding same-sex marriage. Through the persistent application of such legal terminology, the article critically criticizes the Supreme Court’s arguments and debates whether the judgment abides by India’s constitutional commitment to justice, dignity, and equality.
In Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India, the petitioners contended that refusing to allow same-sex couples to get married is against the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. These articles provide for the right to equality, protection of life and personal liberty, freedom of expression and association, and the right to non-discrimination. The marriage of same-sex couples is prohibited according to prevailing Indian laws, particularly under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which is a secular act that is designed for interfaith and civil marriages. Consequently, they are also excluded from benefits like adoption, inheritance, insurance, tax relief, and legal recognition as family. The Supreme Court concurred that queer couples do encounter real problems and discrimination. But it was of the view that the right to marry is not a fundamental right, and asserted that Parliament alone can enact or amend marriage legislation. The Court was invoking the separation of powers doctrine, i.e., the judiciary cannot assume the job of the legislature. Though Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was in favor of granting some sort of recognition in the form of civil unions, most of the judges did not agree and refused to modify or interpret the Special Marriage Act to grant recognition to same-sex couples.
The Court also discussed constitutional morality, i.e., individuals must be treated equally despite society not agreeing. It acknowledged the right of LGBTQ+ individuals to select their partners and live with dignity. But these thoughts weren’t implemented as actual legal rights. Most people feel that the ruling failed to have the opportunity to invoke Article 14, which states that legislation should not single out individuals for less favorable treatment without a good reason. Omitting gay couples from marriage is unequal treatment that doesn’t have any rational basis. The Special Marriage Act could have been read gender-neutrally, but the Court did not so choose to do. Ultimately, the judgment embraced the issue but ducked responsibility back to Parliament. It prioritized procedure over progress. The evidence reveals that although the Court did not exclude queer rights outright, it postponed them — reserving full marriage equality just beyond recall. The 2023 decision of the Supreme Court in Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India was a major but measured step in the battle for marriage equality in India.
While the Court endorsed the rights of LGBTQ+ persons to dignity, autonomy, and cohabitation, it refused to accord legal status to same-sex marriages. The ruling put onus on Parliament, invoking the constraints on judicial power and legislative initiative. This article analytically evaluates the reasoning of the Court by means of constitutional values like equality, non-discrimination, and constitutional morality. The gap between symbolic acknowledgment and substantive rights is also explored, as well as the lost chance to interpret current law in a more inclusive and gender-neutral way. Although the judgment doesn’t shut the door for future advancements, it postpones complete legal equality — positioning same-sex couples in a state of legal uncertainty. The article also examines pivotal judgments and doctrines in law to determine the way ahead for rights of marriage in India.
1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
This landmark judgment decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court recognised the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to dignity, autonomy, and privacy under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It laid the constitutional foundation for equality, which same-sex marriage advocates built upon in the Supriyo Chakraborty case.
2. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
In this case, the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment stressed that privacy includes personal choices in relationships, sexual orientation, and identity — indirectly supporting the argument for marriage equality as an essential part of personal liberty.
3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018)
This case upheld the right of adults to choose their life partners, reinforcing the principle of individual autonomy under Article 21. It was cited in the marriage equality case to argue that the State cannot interfere in a person’s choice of whom to marry — regardless of gender.
4. Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022)
The Court, in this case, took a non-traditional view of family, recognising diverse family structures, including those outside the typical heterosexual marriage. It supported the idea that legal protection should not be limited to conventional notions of family — a point relevant for same-sex couples seeking legal recognition.
5. Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)
This is the central case discussed in the article. While the Court acknowledged the rights of queer individuals to live with dignity and be free from discrimination, it refused to legalise same-sex marriage. The majority placed the responsibility on Parliament, avoiding reinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and thus postponing substantive legal reform.
In conclusion, marriage equality in India is still a goal that has not been fully achieved. Even though the rights of LGBTQ+ people to live with dignity and choose their partners have been recognised in past judgments, the law does not yet allow same-sex couples to get married. This means they are still denied many important legal rights and protections that come with marriage, such as adoption, inheritance, and medical decisions.
The fight for same-sex marriage is not just about personal choices — it is about equal treatment under the law. While some progress has been made, the legal system still treats queer relationships differently from heterosexual ones. It is now up to lawmakers and society to take the next step. Although the right to marry has not been denied forever, the delay in granting it shows that equality is still a work in progress in India.
FAQ
1. Is same-sex marriage legal in India?
No, same-sex marriage is not legally recognised in India yet. LGBTQ+ individuals have the right to live together, but they cannot legally marry under current Indian laws.
2. What rights do same-sex couples miss out on without legal marriage?
Without legal marriage, same-sex couples are denied rights such as adoption, inheritance, joint bank accounts, health insurance benefits, medical decision-making, and tax advantages.
3. Does the Indian Constitution support marriage equality?
The Constitution supports equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty. These values suggest that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, but the law has not yet caught up.
4. Can the judiciary legalise same-sex marriage?
While the judiciary can interpret laws and protect fundamental rights, it has stated that creating or changing marriage laws is mainly the role of Parliament.
5. What is the way forward for marriage equality in India?
Progress depends on Parliament making inclusive laws and society becoming more accepting. Public discussion, legal activism, and awareness can help push for change.
