Author: Yashika Mittal,
Ramaiah College of Law, Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
The case of Supriyo v. Union of India is a landmark legal battle that brought the issue of marriage equality for LGBTQIA+ individuals to the forefront of Indian jurisprudence. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples, arguing that such exclusion violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. While the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the legalization of same-sex marriage falls within the purview of the legislature, the case led to the formation of a government committee to explore legal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, its legal arguments, the Court’s judgment, suggested reforms, and its broader implications. By examining related case laws such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., this study highlights the evolving legal landscape surrounding LGBTQIA+ rights in India.
Keywords:
LGBTQIA+ rights, marriage equality, Indian Constitution, fundamental rights, legal recognition, Special Marriage Act, discrimination, human rights
SUPRIYO V. UNION OF INDIA: A STRUGGLE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
The landmark case of Supriyo v. Union of India is a significant milestone in India’s legal discourse on marriage equality for the LGBTQIA+ community. This case brought to the forefront the debate on whether same-sex couples should be granted legal recognition of their unions. While the Supreme Court of India refrained from legalizing same-sex marriage, the case sparked crucial discussions on LGBTQIA+ rights, fundamental freedoms, and legal reforms necessary for a more inclusive society. This article delves into the background of the case, legal arguments, judgment, suggested reforms, and related case laws to provide a comprehensive understanding of its impact.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The movement for marriage equality in India gained momentum following the historic Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) judgment, which decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships. Despite this ruling, same-sex couples still faced legal barriers in marriage, inheritance, and other civil rights. In November 2022, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, a same-sex couple, petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). They contended that the SMA’s language, which restricted marriage to a ‘male’ and a ‘female,’ violated their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
Their petition was consolidated with other cases challenging similar provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. The petitioners sought legal recognition of their relationships and the associated rights that heterosexual couples enjoy under Indian law. The case became a crucial test for the judiciary’s role in ensuring equal rights for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
Petitioner:
The petitioners argued that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage laws violated their fundamental rights, specifically under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. They contended that denying them the right to marry amounted to discrimination and social exclusion. Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, was a crucial argument, as the petitioners asserted that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples was unjust discrimination. Similarly, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and they emphasized that sexual orientation should be included within this framework.
The petitioners further argued that the right to marry was an intrinsic aspect of personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. The inability to legally marry not only affected their personal relationships but also denied them access to social and financial benefits, including succession rights, joint bank accounts, and medical decision-making powers. Additionally, they contended that the restriction on same-sex marriage curtailed their freedom of expression under Article 19, as it prevented them from fully expressing their commitment to their partners.
Respondent
The Union Government opposed the petitions, arguing that the definition and recognition of marriage fell within the domain of the legislature. The government maintained that marriage, as traditionally understood in Indian society, was a union between a man and a woman. It further contended that any changes to this definition should be made by Parliament, not the judiciary. The government also raised concerns about the potential social and legal implications of recognizing same-sex marriages, particularly in matters related to adoption, inheritance, and family law.
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
On October 17, 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. The Court unanimously ruled that legalizing same-sex marriage was beyond the scope of judicial intervention and should be decided by Parliament. While the Court acknowledged the discrimination faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals, it stated that the legislature was the appropriate body to introduce necessary legal reforms.
A significant aspect of the judgment was the split decision on whether same-sex couples should be granted civil union rights. A majority of the bench declined to recognize civil unions or grant adoption rights to same-sex couples. However, recognizing the concerns raised by the petitioners, the Court directed the Central Government to form a high-powered committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary, to explore ways to address the discrimination faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals. The committee was tasked with identifying legal benefits that could be extended to same-sex couples, such as inheritance rights, financial benefits, and medical decision-making authority.
SUGGESTED REFORMS AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
In response to the judgment, the Central Government initiated efforts to address some of the issues raised in the case. A six-member committee was formed to examine the challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals and propose solutions. Some key areas of focus include ensuring non-discriminatory access to public services, implementing measures to protect LGBTQIA+ individuals from violence and harassment, and establishing guidelines to prevent forced medical interventions.
One of the most pressing reforms suggested by LGBTQIA+ activists and legal experts is the amendment of the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples. Additionally, there is a growing demand for granting equal rights in matters of succession, maintenance, and tax benefits. Legal scholars argue that denying same-sex couples these rights perpetuates systemic discrimination and social exclusion. Furthermore, awareness campaigns and sensitivity training for public officials, including law enforcement and healthcare professionals, are essential to fostering an inclusive society.
RELATED CASE LAWS
The Supriyo case is part of a broader legal struggle for LGBTQIA+ rights in India, building upon previous landmark judgments. One of the most significant cases in this regard is Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment affirmed that LGBTQIA+ individuals are entitled to constitutional protections and dignity.
Another relevant case is Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), where the Supreme Court upheld an individual’s right to marry a person of their choice, reinforcing the principle that personal autonomy in marriage is a fundamental right. Similarly, in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the Court held that societal norms cannot override individual rights, particularly in the context of marriage and personal relationships. These cases provide a legal foundation for future challenges to marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples.
CONCLUSION
The Supriyo v. Union of India case marks a crucial moment in the ongoing struggle for marriage equality in India. While the Supreme Court refrained from legalizing same-sex marriage, the case has ignited conversations on the need for legislative reforms to ensure equal rights for LGBTQIA+ individuals. The formation of a government committee to explore possible legal protections is a step forward, but it remains to be seen whether these efforts will lead to meaningful change.
FAQS
Q1. What was the key legal issue in Supriyo v. Union of India?
The case challenged the constitutional validity of excluding same-sex couples from marriage laws, arguing it violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Q2. Did the Supreme Court legalize same-sex marriage in India through this case?
No, the Court ruled that legalizing same-sex marriage falls under the purview of the legislature and directed the government to explore legal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals.
Q3. What were the key arguments presented by the petitioners?
The petitioners argued that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated their equality, dignity, and personal liberty, while the government maintained that marriage should be defined by Parliament and rooted in traditional Indian values.
