Published on: 06th March 2026
Authored by: Fareena Ansari
Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Lucknow
CASE DETAILS
Citation: (2023) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I.; S.K. Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2023
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023) is an important moment for LGBTQIA+ rights in Indian constitutional law. The case emerged from a group of petitions requesting legal recognition of same-sex marriages under Indian law. Although the Court did not recognize a fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples, the ruling is significant for its careful reasoning on constitutional morality, separation of powers, and judicial review. The divided opinions highlight both progressive interpretation of the constitution and the importance of institutional limits.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners included several same-sex couples and LGBTQIA+ individuals who approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. They sought recognition of their right to marry based on existing laws like the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). The petitioners argued that not recognizing same-sex marriages violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Union of India opposed the petitions, claiming that marriage in India is traditionally defined as a union between a biological man and a woman. The government stated that any change to this definition should be handled by the legislature, not the judiciary. Several States also weighed in, sharing concerns about federalism and social implications.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The main legal issues for the Court were:
- Is there a fundamental right to marry under the Constitution of India?
- Does excluding same-sex couples from marriage violate Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21?
- Can the Supreme Court interpret or modify the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to include same-sex couples?
- Do same-sex couples have a right to civil union and related benefits?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS
The petitioners claimed that the right to marry is a crucial part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Citing cases like Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, they argued that the freedom to choose a life partner is constitutionally protected.
They also asserted that excluding same-sex couples from marriage leads to discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, which is prohibited under Articles 14 and 15. The petitioners pointed out that sexual orientation is a fixed characteristic, as acknowledged in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. They argued that constitutional morality should take precedence over social morality, and the Court must protect minority rights even if the legislature does not act.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Union of India contended that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. It maintained that marriage is a statutory right governed by personal laws and secular regulations like the SMA. According to the respondents, recognizing same-sex marriage would mean creating laws through judicial means.
The government also expressed concerns about the impact on laws regarding adoption, inheritance, and related legal frameworks. It claimed that significant social reforms require discussion in a democratic setup and must be handled by the legislature. The respondents appealed to the doctrine of separation of powers to encourage judicial restraint.
JUDGMENT
In a 3:2 decision, the Supreme Court did not recognize a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples. The majority opinion, written by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (along with Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha), stated that while queer people enjoy constitutional protection, the institution of marriage cannot be judicially expanded to include same-sex couples.
The Court unanimously concluded that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. However, it affirmed that queer individuals have the right to live together and build relationships without facing discrimination. The Chief Justice of India, in his dissenting view (partially joined by Justice S.K. Kaul), recognized a right to civil union and highlighted the need for the state to guarantee non-discrimination in access to social benefits.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The key points of the ruling are:
- The right to marry is not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
- The judiciary cannot insert definitions in the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples, as that would violate the principle of separation of powers.
- While constitutional rights protect queer relationships, legal recognition of marriage is a legislative issue.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The judgment finds a delicate balance between constitutional principles and institutional boundaries. The majority’s focus on separation of powers stresses the need for judicial restraint, particularly in complex social and legal matters. However, this restraint has faced criticism for leaving the protection of minority rights to a legislature that may act slowly or be unwilling to change.
The minority opinion, notably from Chief Justice Chandrachud, takes a transformative constitutional approach. By recognizing a right to civil union, the minority aimed to address the gap between formal equality and true justice. The emphasis on constitutional morality aligns with earlier landmark decisions, such as Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine v. Union of India.
A major concern stemming from the ruling is the division of rights. Although the Court acknowledged the discrimination faced by same-sex couples, the lack of enforceable directions limits the practical impact of the decision. Establishing a committee to examine rights without enforceable outcomes may not sufficiently combat systemic exclusion.
From a historical perspective, the judgment fits with the Court’s careful stance in situations needing legislative action. However, it also marks a shift from the judiciary’s previously proactive role in expanding fundamental rights. This decision could be seen as a missed chance to promote equal rights, though it does uphold democratic legitimacy.
CONCLUSION
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India is a significant ruling that highlights the struggles between constitutional values, social change, and separation of powers. While it fails to establish marriage equality, it upholds the dignity and rights of queer individuals. The ruling places the obligation on lawmakers to fill the legal gaps related to same-sex relationships. Its lasting effect will depend on whether legislators commit to the constitutional promise of equality and inclusion.
Footnotes (Bluebook, 21st ed.)
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, (2023) 10 S.C.C. 1, A.I.R. 2023 S.C. 4539 (India).
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 S.C.C. 368, A.I.R. 2018 S.C. 1933 (India).
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 S.C.C. 192, A.I.R. 2018 S.C. 1601 (India).
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1, A.I.R. 2018 S.C. 4321 (India).
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 S.C.C. 39, A.I.R. 2019 S.C. 489 (India).
