Author: Gautam Tomar, Bharati Vidyapeeth University
TO THE POINT
In a pivotal 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court of India weighed in on the contentious issue of same-sex marriage in the case of Supriyo v. Union of India. In a narrow 3:2 majority decision, the Constitution Bench concluded that the Indian Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to marry. Consequently, the responsibility for deciding whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized was placed firmly in the hands of the legislature, not the judiciary.
While the Court acknowledged the widespread discrimination and social exclusion faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, it stopped short of offering legal validation to same-sex partnerships. By choosing not to reinterpret the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to include queer couples, the judgment reflected a cautious and restrained judicial stance.
This conservative approach ignited significant backlash from activists, academics, and the general public. Many critics argued that the ruling stood at odds with earlier landmark decisions—such as Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy—which had robustly defended the ideals of personal liberty and constitutional ethics. This article delves into the reasoning behind the Court’s judgment, highlights the doctrinal frictions it reveals, and unpacks its wider impact on the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ equality in India.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
This section sets the stage by unpacking several key legal terms and doctrines that are central to understanding the Court’s reasoning in the case.
Fundamental Rights: Located in Part III of the Indian Constitution, these rights represent essential liberties that every citizen is entitled to, forming the bedrock of constitutional democracy.
Constitutional Morality: This concept prioritizes allegiance to constitutional principles—such as dignity, equality, and justice—over dominant societal customs or moral views.
Judicial Restraint: A legal approach where judges consciously limit their own power, opting not to overstep into the domain of the legislature or make law from the bench.
Reading Down: A method of statutory interpretation used by courts to construe laws in a way that preserves their constitutionality, often by narrowing their scope.
Transformative Constitutionalism: A progressive interpretive lens that sees the Constitution as a living document, meant to evolve alongside shifting societal values and norms.
Civil Union: A legal partnership that offers rights similar to marriage, often proposed as a compromise to extend legal recognition without altering traditional marriage laws.
THE PROOF
In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a 4:1 majority ruling against extending legal recognition to same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954. While the Chief Justice and Justice Kaul penned concurring opinions that leaned toward a progressive interpretation of equality and dignity, Justices Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha adopted a more restrained approach, citing the limits of judicial authority.
Key Takeaways:
The Court interpreted the SMA as legislation crafted specifically for heterosexual couples, excluding same-sex unions by design.
The majority held that any judicial attempt to modify the SMA to include queer couples would breach constitutional boundaries and violate the principle of separation of powers.
Although the Bench stopped short of recognizing a fundamental right to marry, it did instruct the government to establish a high-level committee tasked with addressing the practical and legal concerns of same-sex couples.
ABSTRACT
The Supriyo v. Union of India resolution marks a overcritical juncture in India’s trip toward LGBTQIA birthrights, arriving in the shadow of corner sentences like Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy. Amid expedients that the Supreme Court would take a bold, progressive stride toward feting same- coitus conjugality, the maturity took rather to exercise judicial constraint. choreographing conjugality as a matter for legislative deliberation, the Court refused to reinterpret the law, citing the boundaries of its indigenous part. Meanwhile, the differing judges drew on the morality of indigenous probity and invoked Article 14’s pledge of equivalency to argue in indulgence of addition.
This judgment introduces a deadly contradiction it acknowledges the reality of demarcation faced by queer individualities, yet stops short of offering them legit requital. The present-day dissection explores this pressure, reviews the underpinning indigenous logic, and contextualizes the resolution within the thick line of Indian queer justice and popular constitutionalism.
CASE LAWS
1: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India( 2018)
This corner resolution struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, permitting consensual same- coitus dealings.
Significance It laid the root for birthrights- grounded justice anchored in quality, identity, and autonomy.
Reflection While Navtej marked a virtuous and emblematic coup, Supriyo stopped suddenly of converting that palm into enforceable civil birthrights, especially in the demesne of conjugality.
2: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India( 2017)
The Court honored the birthright to sequestration as a abecedarian birthright under Composition 21.
Significance The resolution claimed that autonomy in particular elections similar as opting a mate — falls exactly within the sphere of sequestration.
Reflection In Supriyo, the Court conceded private closeness but dithered to extend that recognition into the public and legit sphere of conjugality, drawing a perfection numerous eyed as artificial.
3: Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.( 2018)
The judgment upheld the birthright of an grown-up to take a life mate as intermediary to particular choice.
Significance A strong precedent in brace of decisional autonomy within connections.
Reflection The nonage opinion in Supriyo canted on this case to assert conjugality liberty as a defended choice, but the maturity opinion largely sidestepped its counteraccusations.
4: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal( 2022)
The Court broadened the conception of” blood” to carrynon-traditional,non-nuclear arrangements.
Significance-It reflected an evolving judicial understanding of domestic structures beyond heteronormative models.
Reflection-While Chief Justice Chandrachud invoked this case to argue for the legality of same- coitus couplings, the maturity treated the recognition of conjugality as a legislative appanage , distancing the bar from the matter.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Supriyo captures a judiciary torn between compassion and constitutional caution. It offered recognition without resolution — an empathetic nod paired with a firm legal refusal. The dissent, especially from the Chief Justice, stood out as a beacon of progress, appealing to the nation’s conscience and its commitment to constitutional ideals.
Yet, the majority’s insistence on legislative primacy brings forth a troubling dilemma: if courts cannot confront entrenched inequality, who will — and on what timeline? Though the judgment stopped short of ushering in legal change, it undeniably shifted the national conversation. The responsibility now shifts to Parliament. But for India’s queer citizens, the promise of equality has once again been deferred.
FAQS
1. What central legal issue did Supriyo v. Union of India address?
The case centered on whether same-sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry, and whether the Special Marriage Act, 1954, could be interpreted to include non-heterosexual unions.
2. Did the Supreme Court legalize same-sex marriage?
No. The Court declined to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, asserting that such a decision rests with the legislature, not the judiciary.
3. What was the dissenting view?
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S. Kaul argued in favor of recognizing civil unions for queer couples and granting them equal rights in areas such as adoption. Their opinions leaned on the principle of constitutional morality, urging progress despite prevailing social resistance.
4. What is the legal status of same-sex marriage in India today?
As of now, same-sex marriages remain unrecognized under Indian law. However, the Court directed the government to form a committee to examine the legal and social challenges faced by queer couples, keeping the issue alive in the policy arena.
5. Why is Supriyo still considered a landmark case?
Despite denying marriage rights, the judgment is pivotal for its exploration of constitutional boundaries, judicial restraint, and evolving understandings of identity and liberty. It pushed the conversation forward and exposed the tensions at the heart of queer legal recognition in India.
