Author: Cheshta Singh, Agra College Faculty Of Law
Abstract
The debate on legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India reached a constitutional climax with the Supreme Court’s 2023 verdict in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India. While the Court acknowledged the rights and dignity of LGBTQIA+ persons, it declined to legalise same-sex marriage, placing the matter within the legislative domain. This judgment has sparked intense discourse on constitutional morality, separation of powers, and the scope of fundamental rights. This article analyses the legal arguments, constitutional principles, judicial reasoning, and future implications of the same-sex marriage debate in India.
To the Point
India has progressively recognised LGBTQIA+ rights through judicial interventions, including decriminalisation of homosexuality and recognition of live-in relationships. However, the question of marital recognition remains unresolved.
The key issues include:
• Whether marriage is a fundamental right
• Whether denying marriage equality violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21
• Whether courts can expand the meaning of marriage beyond heterosexual norms
The Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriage has shifted the responsibility to Parliament.
Use of Legal Jargon
The discourse surrounding same-sex marriage involves constitutional doctrines such as constitutional morality, transformative constitutionalism, separation of powers, and judicial restraint. Petitioners relied on Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (freedom of expression), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court, however, emphasised the doctrine of legislative supremacy, holding that judicial overreach into policy-making would violate constitutional boundaries.
The Proof
Petitioners argued that marriage confers a bundle of rights including succession, adoption, medical consent, and social security. Denial of these rights solely on the basis of sexual orientation was claimed to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Union Government contended that marriage is a social institution regulated by statute, not a fundamental right. It further argued that Indian family laws are rooted in cultural and religious practices, and any change must emanate from the legislature after public deliberation.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the discrimination faced by queer couples but declined to judicially create a new marital regime.
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning
The Constitution Bench delivered a split verdict. While all judges unanimously held that queer persons have the right to cohabit and form relationships, the majority ruled that:
• There is no fundamental right to marry
• Courts cannot rewrite personal laws or the Special Marriage Act
• Legal recognition of marriage requires legislative intervention
However, the Court directed the State to ensure protection against discrimination and recognised the concept of a “chosen family.”
Case Laws
1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Decriminalised consensual homosexual acts and affirmed sexual orientation as an intrinsic part of identity.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Recognised privacy as a fundamental right, forming the foundation for autonomy and choice in relationships.
3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018)
Affirmed the right to choose one’s partner as a facet of Article 21.
4. Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)
Declined legal recognition of same-sex marriage while acknowledging queer relationships.
Constitutional and Social Implications
The judgment reflects a tension between judicial activism and restraint. While the Court upheld constitutional values of dignity and autonomy, it stopped short of granting marriage equality.
Critics argue that the Court missed an opportunity to apply transformative constitutionalism. Supporters of the judgment maintain that social reforms of such magnitude must emerge through democratic processes.
The ruling has intensified public debate and increased pressure on lawmakers to address LGBTQIA+ rights legislatively.
Conclusion
The same-sex marriage verdict represents a cautious yet significant step in India’s constitutional journey. While marriage equality remains unrealised, the recognition of queer relationships and protection against discrimination marks progress. The judgment underscores the limits of judicial power while reinforcing the need for legislative action. The future of marriage equality in India now depends on political will, societal acceptance, and continued constitutional dialogue.
FAQS
Q1. Is same-sex marriage legal in India?
No, same-sex marriage is not legally recognised in India as of now.
Q2. Did the Supreme Court recognise LGBTQIA+ relationships?
Yes, the Court recognised the right of queer persons to cohabit and form relationships.
Q3. Is marriage a fundamental right?
The Supreme Court held that marriage is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Q4. Can Parliament legalise same-sex marriage?
Yes, Parliament has the authority to enact laws recognising same-sex marriage.
Q5. What is the way forward for marriage equality?
Legislative reform, social awareness, and continued advocacy are essential for future recognition.
