Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)

1. Case Details

Citation: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice P.S. Narasimha.
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2023.

2. Introduction

In a landmark ruling on the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals in the context of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023) represents an important part of India’s ongoing efforts to create homogenous personal laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals and will provide a precedent for subsequent deliberation across the country concerning equality, dignity, autonomy, and the power authority of the judiciary to effect social change. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling to protect the constitutional rights of queer individuals and their right to form relationships provided critical background for the determination of the parameters of the extension of marriage to same-sex couples; however, this case presents an opportunity to discuss critical issues with regard to legal definitions and a review of judicial policy with a specific emphasis on separation of powers and appropriate judicial interventions in matters that are traditionally addressed by legislative policy.

3. Facts of the Case

Various writ petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court of India by LGBTQIA+ individuals (including same-sex couples) arguing that their marriages should be recognized pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Some of the petitioners were long-term partners wishing to formalize their relationship by marrying.
The petitions principally argue that the framework in which marriage is currently governed by the Special Marriage Act, 1954, discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of gender because the Act only provides that a marriage is a union “between a male and a female.” Therefore, same-sex marriages were not permitted under the Special Marriage Act. Certain personal law statutes were also similarly implicated.
Given the implications of the issues raised by the petitions on the respective Constitution and marriage laws, the matters have been referred to a five-person Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to determine whether same-sex couples can be provided with legal recognition in respect of their marriages under the existing legal framework and the extent to which the constitutional courts may intervene with respect to the institution of marriage.

4. Issues for Determination

The Constitution Bench framed and considered the following key issues:
1. Whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under Article 15.
3. Whether there exists a fundamental right to marry under the Constitution.
4. Whether the Supreme Court can interpret existing marriage statutes, particularly the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in a gender-neutral manner to include same-sex couples.
5. The extent to which constitutional courts can intervene in matters involving legislative policy and social institutions.

5. Arguments Advanced

A. Petitioners’ Arguments
According to the petitioners, marriage is not just a social institution – it also provides a means of obtaining many rights under the law. The applicants argue that if marriage is not available to same-sex couples, then that is to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation; and that such a form of discrimination constitutes a violation of the right to equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the petitioners also rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which held that the right to make personal decisions about one’s life partner – including the right to privacy under Article 21 – should be free from government interference.
The petitioners state that constitutional morality should prevail over social morality, and that it is the duty of the courts to protect private individuals from the prejudice and bias of the majority. The petitioners further argue that the Special Marriage Act of 1954 was enacted as a secular law, to allow marriages between two individuals of different religions, or in a manner that is not concerned with personal laws. They ask that the Court adopt an approach which gives meaning to the Act as written and which includes same-sex couples as part of the intent of that Act, without the necessity of rewriting the statute.
B. Respondents’ Arguments
According to the Union of India, the Indian Constitution does not provide a right to marry – whether heterosexual or homosexual – as a fundamental right. Marriage law is a complex policy decision that has been influenced by a variety of social, cultural, and religious factors. If the courts were to recognize homosexual marriage, it would be considered creating law through the judicial system, thus violating the separation of powers doctrine. It also suggests how recognizing homosexual marriage as a legal form of marriage would have far-reaching implications concerning other legal areas that are connected with marriage, such as adoption, succession, spousal maintenance (alimony), taxation, and the criminal justice system. The Union believes that this type of extensive reform will require extensive discussion in the legislative process before a consensus can be reached within a democracy.

6. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi

The ruling of the Constitution Bench was divided on the issue. By a vote of three to two, the majority found that there was no inherent right to marry and thus, not recognizing same-sex marriage since there are no laws supporting the same-sex marriage option in place today. Furthermore, the majority found that courts cannot insert gender-neutral language into marriage statutes when the intent of the Statute is clear .
At the same time, the court unanimously affirmed that round & out-laws will get equal rights through the law and will not face any discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court also held that same-sex couples will have a right under Article 21 of the Constitution to develop meaningful and live together in established personal relationships.
The reason for this decision is because the court also stated that the moral obligation to provide respect for the dignity, autonomy, and equality of all sexual orientations must be upheld; however, it is up to the legislature to determine whether same-sex marriage is an inclusive means of creating families. Courts can interpret laws but cannot establish a new social institution through legal interpretation of clear statutes.

7. Directions Issued

Although the Court declined to legalize same-sex marriage, it directed the Union Government to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the administrative and legal measures necessary to protect the rights of queer couples. These measures were to include access to joint bank accounts, nomination rights, medical decision-making, and other practical entitlements associated with long-term relationships.

8. Critical Analysis

Supriyo v. Union of India is an example of judicial restraint applied to constitutional change that was supposedly going to happen quickly. While the Court’s unanimous approval of queer dignity is a continuation of the progressive trajectory of Indian Constitutional law as established in Navtej Singh Johar, the Court’s refusal to allow marriage equality demonstrated that judge-led reform can only go so far.
The Court’s majority opinion also relies upon the doctrine of separation of powers, which suggests a concern for institutional legitimacy. By turning the matter over to the legislature, the Court emphasised democratic accountability in restructuring society’s institutions. However, allowing this kind of delay may lead to the perpetuation of societal inequity because it enables the denial of substantive rights until some uncertain time in the future when the legislature acts.
The dissenting opinions, particularly those written by the Chief Justice, reflect a more transformative understanding of constitutional morality. They view the Constitution as a living document that is meant to challenge deeply entrenched forms of hierarchy, and protect vulnerable minorities. From this perspective the denial of same-sex couples’ right to marry was a violation of the Constitution, causing them harm, and therefore requires judicial remedy.
The Court witnessed both formal and substantive justice with respect to the harm suffered by homosexual couples. Still, the lack of enforceable rights for the Court in this ruling will result to a limited impact of the Court’s affirmations of the dignity of these couples. The creation of a committee was created to be one symbol but offers no possible remedy of any nature on a short-term basis or in enforcement. However, in any event, it has value, jurisprudentially, in that it strengthens the constitutional ground of sexual orientation in the Constitution; and endorses the validity of homosexual relationships. This decision provides an extremely strong normative base for future reform efforts and further or ongoing constitutional arguments.

9. Conclusion

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India is an important but unfinished point in India’s constitutional development towards equality; Although the judgment does not formally declare equality for marriages, at least it recognises the dignity, autonomy and citizenship rights of LGBTQIA+ persons. It also points to the tension between exciting a reform through judicial activism and exercising restraint through judicial restraint, in connection to the need for legislative solutions to transform constitutional ideals into reality.
The Supriyo case supports the broader constitutional narrative by reiterating that courts can provide the legal framework for social reform yet that lasting social change cannot happen without democratic engagement. Therefore, the Supriyo case will continue to shape discussions about equality under the law, constitutional morality, and the judiciary’s role in advancing social justice.