Author : WASILA, 1ST YR. BA.LLB. (HONS.) SHARDA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW JUNE 2024
Abstract
A pivotal moment in India’s legal history has been reached in the case of Supriya Chakraborty and others v. The Union of India, particularly concerning marriage norms and LGBTQ+ rights. Various petitions challenged Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, leading to a thorough examination of the rights and recognition of same-sex couples in India. The petitioners argued that the Act’s exclusion of same-sex couples violated fundamental constitutional rights such as equality, non-discrimination, personal liberty, and the freedom to marry. However, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, unanimously dismissed the claim that same-sex couples have an absolute right to marry, maintaining the current stance that same-sex unions are not acknowledged under the Act. Despite the setback, the Court mandated the establishment of a High-Power Committee to review regulations related to same-sex marriage, hinting at a potential shift towards acceptance and inclusivity in the future. This case underscores the complexities of balancing tradition, legislation, and societal evolution in the realm of marriage and individual freedoms, emphasizing the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
Introduction:
The case of Supriya Chakraborty and another Vs. The Union of India marks a watershed in India’s legal situation. Besides his quick proposals for renewable rights and personal independence. The case shaped broader social views and legal ideals, particularly regarding marriage standards and the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Its centrality resonated far from the court, launching a social and legal movement that began to rethink the concept of traditional marriage.
Background:
LGBTQ+ individuals and couples in India have begun authentic practices to affirm their connections. In January 2020, Nikesh and Sonu filed a claim in the Kerala High Court, which was later settled by Equity Anu Sivaraman. In September 2020, Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar M, Giti Thadani and G. Or as applied for a similar plea in the Delhi High Court, which was granted by Tall Court Chairman D.N. Patel and Equity Prateek Jalan. Thus, in November 2022, Supriya Chakraborty and Abhay Darn, close partners Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj Anand filed a claim in the High Court, according to which the Indian general partner D.Y. confessed Chandrachud and Equity Hima Kohli. The High Court facilitated the trading of nine interrelated petitions from the High Courts so that they could be heard together. During the 15th sitting of 2023, the Supreme Court allowed 20 related petitions from 52 gender and representation minorities, including 17 couples. In a general sense, experts sought confirmation based on marriage rules and tested the reliability of observation and complaint work methods. Some self-identified Hindus fought against the ban on the Hindu Marriage Act, citing a serious violation of their rights. The true description included various supporters and the Supreme Court appointed advocates Arundhati Katju and Kanu Agrawal directly for the petitioners and respondents. Senior Officer R. Venkataramani and Specialist Common Tushar Mehta served the respondents.
Facts:
This case has been in the limelight since early 2023. Current issues in the case included a petition filed by two same-sex couples in the High Court on November 14, 2022. Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Darn were the main experts in the case. Parth Phiroze Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand were introduced on request. The applicants challenged the legitimacy of Section 4(c) of the Emergency Marriage Act of 1954 on the grounds that the practice persecuted same-sex couples by denying them objects of interest such as affairs, hoarding, surrogacy, and employment and retirement benefits. . . The Supreme Court transferred the comparative petitions pending under the watchful eye of the Supreme Courts. These various petitions sought to invoke the powers, including the Indian Marriage Act, 1955 and the Distance Marriage Act, 1969. On May 11, 2023, a 5-judge judge in Situate saved the verdict after a 10-day hearing. On October 17, 2023, the 5-judge Situate released its selection of marriage adjustment petitions from GLBTQIA+ individuals.
Issue Raised
Petitioners contend that relationships between “males” and “females” are recognized under Section 4(c) of the Act. It denies same-sex couples open jobs, retirement benefits, surrogacy, property rights and other marriage priorities that will later come against them. The plaintiffs requested that the court recognize Section 4(c) of the Act as unconstitutional. Several additional petitions against various individual laws are attached to the petition. Lawyers fight against the fact that refusing to recognize same-sex marriage abuses the right to correspondence, the opportunity to reason and the nobility. (Datta) The applicants sought a gender-neutral interpretation of the Emergency Marriage Act of 1954, which allows same-sex partnerships where couples are barred from marriage under their personal law. They argued that the Extraordinary Marriage Law violated Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 because it prohibited the marriage of same-sex, gender non-conforming GLBTQIIA+ couples. They also requested that the terms “husband” and “wife” and all other gender-specific terms be replaced by the term’s “man” or “husband”.
“A child cannot be given as property to someone if he has not been married for at least two years, but in the case of adoption to relatives or stepfathers,” says the central specialist in the separation of assets, which administers the 5. (3).) program.
As the CJI handed down the choice, he expressed that there is no evidence that a heterosexual couple can act as a hook to secure a child. (“From same-sex marriage to adoption rights for foreign couples: Key takeaways from SC judgment | India News – Times of India”)
Atypical unions are subject to successive dissolution under Schedule 5(3). The choice is almost imaginable for gay men in their personal space. As a result, the preference for the LGBT+ community is getting stronger.
Social Shame and Segregation:
Because their organizations are not legally recognized, LGBTQ+ people face social shame and segregation, advocates point out. They argue that legalizing same-sex marriage will reduce prejudice and increase open acceptance.
Family and Relationship Rights:
Concerns have been raised about health care options, inheritance, adoption, spousal support and other legal issues related to families of same-sex couples, emphasizing the need for legal recognition to ensure these rights.
Contention by petitioner
The petitioner asserted that the fundamental right to marry a person of one’s choice is contained in Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Constitution and any prohibition or separation provided for in Section 4(c).) and the distinctive performance of SMA is structure. Their prerogative to refuse compensation for injury to the spouse Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25. Article 21 deals with the qualification of affection that creates a satisfactory bond with the person he wants to choose.
Everyone has the right to marry the person of their choice. Based on this right, decentralized people also have the right to work. SMA must be viewed in a gender-neutral manner. Gender terms such as “husband” and “wife” should be read as “husband”.
The law defines “family” and “household” broadly and is not limited to a “biological” husband and wife and their children. Surrogacy and adoption are like hitchhiking couples, so LGBT couples have the right to find a family.
It denies GLBTQIA+ people equal protection under the law. The non-recognition of same-sex and non-same-sex marriages prejudices LGBTQIA+ people and denies them rights under social security and benefit laws. Banning LGBTQIA+ people from SMA is clearly subjective. LGBTQIA+ couples have no reasonable or acceptable defence to avoid marriage.
There is not fundamentally relevant and understandable difference between LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ people. In the case under consideration, the classification is based, as it were, on the sexual representation of the married parties and sexual personalities, which are prohibited by the constitution. Help, nothing to do with the protest SMA is hoping for. The theme of SMA is to offer gracious marriage to couples who cannot or choose not to marry according to their own laws. The exclusion of LGBTQ couples from the SMA bears no rational relation to this issue
Contentions by respondent
Courts can use the interpretive machinery to read as if a statutory reason is not met. Because the purpose of the SMA is to regulate heterosexual unions, this court cannot read words into the sanctions to expand its scope beyond what was originally intended.
Structure does not recognize marriage. The expression of a person’s sexuality is guaranteed according to Article 19(1)(a) of the structure. Be that as it may, marriage cannot be based on the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(c) or the right to form unions.
The state is not obliged to give legal recognition to every relationship. The state will only recognize the links if there is a genuine state of interest. The state has a genuine interest in the legal recognition of heterosexual relationships to support society
Courts have no power to decide whether a non-heterosexual union can be legally recognized. This can be a question that basically has to be chosen by the board, which is the elected representative of the citizens.
Rationale
Affirming and legalizing same-sex unions is not just a matter of taste or philosophy; or perhaps it is a manifestation of cultural development, an essential human right and an affirmation of the diversity of all human relationships. Support for the legalization of same-sex unions is strongly based on ideas of social progress, equality and human dignity.
In principle, the promotion of same-sex marriage is compatible with the idea of legal balance. Denying someone the opportunity to marry because of their sexual orientation goes against the basic rule of fair treatment for all people. First, legalizing same-sex unions is a crucial step to change this fallacy and illustrate that all people, regardless of sexual activity, should express love and commitment.
In addition to rights, legal recognition of same-sex marriage demonstrates integration and societal acceptance. Accepting same-sex marriage sends a strong message about valuing and preserving many different relationships. By creating an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, it reduces shame and prejudice against LGBTQ+ participation and promotes a more caring and inclusive society.
Furthermore, legalizing same-sex unions has critical viability. Ensuring access to mandatory legal guarantees and benefits, including health decisions, inheritance rights and family stability, is central to ensuring the well-being and safety of same-sex families.
Promoting same-sex marriage means changing social traditions to meet higher standards, not meeting them. Society evolves through integration, acceptance and understanding of the complexity of human intelligence. The acceptance of same-sex unions can be a sign of a society that has evolved and begun to value the freedoms and rights of all its citizens, regardless of their gender representation.
Fundamentally, promoting and legalizing same-sex marriage is an important first step in creating a more compassionate, just and liberal society. It resonates with widespread values such as correspondence, nobility and respect for everyone’s right to admire and engage, rising above particular conclusions and ideologies.
Verdict
The judges all agreed that marriage isn’t a fundamental right, and same-sex couples can’t claim it as such. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal unanimously.
The provisions of the Special Marriage Act are up for grabs.
Civil unions between same-sex couples are not legally recognized by most of the judges, and they cannot claim the right to adopt.
A high-power committee chaired by the cabinet secretary was appointed. The central government should review laws related to same-sex marriage factors considering the input of all stakeholders, States and Union Territories.
The language used in these agreements, such as ‘spouse’, ‘spouse’, ‘in case’, is a guarantee that the legislature never intended for these provisions to apply to anyone else’s association. Heterosexual relationships are like heterosexual relationships. The terms used are explicit and ready to give only one possible definition. The Court should not take any development that defeats such a purpose, and it would not be a good idea to increase the importance of marriage to classes that were never intended under it. Therefore, this judgment created such importance and created great interest in marriage.
Defects in law
Prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying because of their sexual orientation is against Article 14 (Right to Equality) Everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the right to equal protection and treatment under the law.
Discrimination against all citizens is prohibited by Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) Discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited.
The right to marry and find a family is one of the rights to life and personal liberty. Denying same-sex couples the chance to tie the knot violates their right to freely choose their partner and live with respect.
The choice and affiliation of a person are expressed in marriage according to Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) Denying someone the right to express themselves and make decisions based on their sexual orientation limits their ability to express themselves. The spandana and D’Souza)
Sometimes there are laws, but there are not enough resources to enforce them. This makes it challenging to hold people accountable and enforce laws, reducing the effectiveness of legal claims.
Laws on women’s rights and gender equality are not comprehensive. Legislation needs to be strengthened to tackle issues like discrimination, inequalities and gender-based violence.
Complex and lengthy legal processes make people reluctant to take legal action in India. If legal procedures were simplified, legal protection could be more accessible and effective.
It can lead to misunderstandings and violations in the interpretation and application of laws that overlap or conflict. Harmonizing laws is essential for ensuring uniformity and clarity.
Same-sex couples have the right to marry according to the current interpretation of Indian law, which violates equality, non-discrimination, personal freedom and the right to live with dignity. All of these rights are secured by these articles.
As human rights standards rise and societal attitudes change, keeping same-sex marriage illegal continues to run counter to ideals of equality and justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Supriyo v. The Indian Union poses a substantial obstacle for the Indian LGBTQ+ community. The decision to deny legal recognition of same-sex marriage and place the issue in the hands of Parliament was met with disappointment by LGBTQ+ rights advocates.
There was a glimmer of hope emanating from the dissent of Justices Chandrachud and Kohli. The right to marry is a fundamental right and Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act violates the rights of same-sex couples, according to their dissent. Mandarin is a mandarin fruit. Their opinion highlights the possibility that the Supreme Court may reconsider its position and take steps towards legalizing same-sex marriage in India in the future.
The majority’s dismaying stance was countered by the dissenting views of Justices Chandrachud and Kohli, who reaffirmed the fight for equality and LGBTQ+ rights in India.
FAQs
Q1. If not marriage, are queer couples allowed to make a “civil union”, a marriage arrangement?
The Supreme Court decision stated that until now same-sex couples in India do not have an inherent right to marry or enter into a civil union. According to the majority opinion, such changes could only be implemented by an elected parliament, because these unions would influence many laws and policies.
Q2. Can queer couples adopt children?
Regarding adoption, same-sex couples can adopt before 2022 by naming one partner as the legal parent. It took advantage of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, which allowed singles to be admitted. However, new rules introduced in 2022 made the process more difficult and required two years of stable marriage to qualify. Despite overturning some of these rules, the court ultimately left the responsibility for re-evaluating adoption laws to the executive branch and encouraged them to reconsider adoption laws in the interests and welfare of children. This decision basically upholds the status quo and offers little optimism for GLBTQ+ adoption rights in India.
References
