Author: Eshika Sahay, Netaji Subhas University
To the Point
In Supriyo v. Union of India( 2023), the Supreme Court declined to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The maturity judgment maintained that only the council could legislate such a change, signalling judicial restraint. While the Court conceded that queer individualities have the right to form connections and live with quality, it refused to interpret the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in a way that includes same- coitus unions. As a result, the ruling stops short of full equivalency under law, indeed though it appreciatively recognises the legality of queer connections.
Abstract
Since the Supreme Court of India decriminalised homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the demand for full equivalency — especially the right to marry — has grown stronger within the LGBTQIA community. still, the Court’s important-awaited ruling in Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India( 2023) declined to legalise same-sex marriage. Although the Court reaffirmed that queer individualities have a indigenous right to quality, cohabitation, and protection from demarcation, it left the question of marriage equivalency to Parliament. This composition critically analyses the ruling, its indigenous logic, and what it means for the road ahead in securing equal rights for queer persons in India.
Use of Legal Jargon
o Petitioner- An existent who brings a case before a court.
o Ultra vires- An action taken beyond the legal power or authority of a body.
o Judicial Review- The power of courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative or administrative conduct.
o Interpretive Overreach- When a court reads a enactment too astronomically, going beyond its intended meaning.
o Fundamental Rights- Basic indigenous rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
o Manifest Arbitrariness- A legal standard used under Composition 14 to test whether a law is illogical or unjust.
o Writ governance- The power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders for administering abecedarian rights under Articles 226 and 32, independently.
The Proof What the Supreme Court Actually Held
➤ Majority Opinion( 32 Split) The maturity, including Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul, held that same- coitus couples have the indigenous right to live together, form hookups, and seek protection against demarcation — these are shielded under Composition 21( Right to Life and Personal Liberty). still, the Court clarified that the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which enables interfaith andinter-caste marriages, cannot be judicially altered to accommodate same- coitus couples. Doing so, the judges said, would be akin to rewriting the law — an act reserved for Parliament, not the bar. Importantly, while the Court conceded that marriage is an important social institution, it abstain from declaring it a abecedarian right for queer individualities. Hence, the verdict stops short of granting legal equality.
➤ Differing Opinion Justice B.V. Nagarathna penned a nuanced dissent. While agreeing that there’s no abecedarian right to marry under the Constitution, she held that same- coitus couples earn legal recognition through civil unions or analogous legal instruments. She called on the State to insure that these couples are not barred from penetrating benefits like heritage, relinquishment, medical concurrence, and insurance — rights that flow from legal recognition. Her opinion illuminated how the denial of marriage impairs multiple lapping rights and contributes to institutionalised demarcation.
Case Laws
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 2018) 10 SCC 1
Decriminalised consensual same- coitus relations by reading down Section 377 IPC.
Asserted the indigenous guarantees of sequestration, quality, and sexual autonomy.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. 2018) 16 SCC 368
Upheld the right of grown-ups to choose their life mate as natural to Composition 21.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India 2018) 7 SCC 192
Emphasised the right of individualities to enter consensual connections free from societal or domestic compulsion.
Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India 2023)
Declined legalisation of same-coitus marriage.
Affirmed indigenous rights of queer persons to form connections and live with quality.
Conclusion
The Supriyo judgment is a step forward but not a vault. It symbolises a partial palm affirming particular autonomy and the right to love, but withholding legal equivalency in the form of marriage. The Court’s decision to postpone the matter to the council reflects institutional restraint but also highlights a lack of urgency in addressing long- standing inequalities faced by queer individualities. This verdict makes it clear that the battle for marriage equivalency must now move to Parliament. The ruling leaves room for stopgap — by recognising the legality of queer connections but also necessitates activism, legal reform, and public converse to insure that love is treated inversely under the law.
FAQS
Q1 Has same- coitus marriage been legalised in India?
No, the Supreme Court has not legalised same- coitus marriage. It held that this decision must be made by the council.
Q2 What rights were granted to queer couples in the ruling?
The Court recognised their right to form connections, abide, and be defended against demarcation and importunity.
Q3 Are same- coitus couples allowed to borrow children now?
Presently, no. The CARA( Central Adoption Resource Authority) guidelines bar relinquishment by same- coitus couples. The Court did not capsize these rules.
Q4 What can same- coitus couples do for legal recognition now?
They can approach lawgivers, advocate for civil union legislation, and continue filing PILs to press for change in being laws.
Q5 Is marriage a abecedarian right under Indian law?
Marriage is considered part of the right to life under Composition 21 for heterosexual couples. The same recognition is yet to be extended to same-coitus couples.
