Published On: August 23, 2026
Authored By: Solihah Rashid
University of Kashmir
1. Case Details
Full Case Name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India[1]
Citations: 2023 INSC 920; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S. Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice P.S. Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2023
2. Facts of the Case
This case arose from a batch of writ petitions filed by same-sex couples seeking legal recognition for non-heterosexual marriages under Indian law. Even though consensual homosexual acts had been decriminalised in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India,[2] the petitioners claimed that the lack of institutional recognition left same-sex relationships denied of legal protection and subject to structural exclusion.
The petitioners sought recognition under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) and various personal laws. They argued that restricting marriage strictly to heterosexual couples violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Union Government opposed the petitions, stating that marriage in India is a socio-legal institution traditionally defined as a union between a biological man and a biological woman. The State argued that changing this legal structure fell directly within the legislative domain rather than judicial interpretation.
3. Issues for Determination
1. Whether the constitutional right to freedom and personal liberty under Article 21 contains a fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples.
2. Whether Section 4 and associated provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 can be read in a gender-neutral manner to include same-sex unions.
3. Whether omitting same-sex couples from the statutory structure of marriage violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the judiciary holds the jurisdiction to grant legal recognition to civil unions or to direct the legislature to frame regulations for same-sex relationships.
4. Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
Right to Autonomy and Dignity: Relying on Navtej Singh Johar[2] and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA),[3] the petitioners affirmed that sexual orientation and gender identity are fundamental to personal identity and self-determination under Article 21.
Equal Protection under the Law: Excluding individuals from the benefits of marriage based entirely on sexual orientation amounts to discrimination prohibited under Articles 14 and 15.
Purposive Interpretation: The Court was urged to apply a living-tree interpretation to the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by replacing gendered terms (e.g., husband and wife) with gender-neutral terminology (spouse).
Practical Hardships: The deprivation of legal recognition causes various administrative handicaps, including denial of joint adoption rights, succession, bank account operations, tax benefits, and medical decision-making for partners.
Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India)
Legislative Prerogative: The institution of marriage is closely linked to social policy, custom, and personal laws; defining its boundaries is the sole domain of Parliament.
Limits of Statutory Interpretation: Reframing the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to include same-sex couples would create cascading effects across the statutory structure (including adoption, divorce, maintenance, and inheritance laws), thereby amounting to judicial legislation.
Scope of Fundamental Rights: Decriminalisation of same-sex relationships does not impose a constitutional obligation on the State to grant positive social entitlements or statutory status such as marriage.
5. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
The five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a split verdict (3:2), declining to read down the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or grant constitutional status to same-sex marriage.
Majority Opinion (Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha JJ)
No Constitutional Right to Marry: The majority held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution; marriage is a statutory right created and regulated by law.
Separation of Powers: The Court cannot substitute gender-neutral terms into the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without exceeding its judicial boundaries and disrupting existing statutory arrangements.
State Action: Extending civil rights to same-sex couples rests with the legislature. The majority recorded the Union Government’s undertaking to set up a high-powered Committee to examine administrative and socio-legal measures for same-sex partners.
Minority Opinion (Chandrachud CJI and Kaul J)
Right to Choose a Partner: The freedom to enter into a long-term committed relationship is protected under Article 21.
Civil Unions: The minority held that the State has a positive duty to legally recognise same-sex unions to prevent systemic discrimination.
Adoption Rights: CJI Chandrachud held that Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) regulations restricting joint adoption to heterosexual married couples were discriminatory under Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: Legal recognition of marriage is a statutory privilege created by Parliament, not a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The judiciary cannot reinterpret statutory marriage laws in a gender-neutral manner where such an interpretation disturbs the legislative structure.
6. Critical Analysis
The verdict in Supriyo signifies a delicate boundary exercise between constitutional ethics and judicial limitations. While the entire Bench affirmed that LGBTQ+ individuals must be shielded from discrimination and state harassment, the majority drew a firm distinction between negative liberty (freedom from state interference, as recognised in Navtej Singh Johar) and positive rights (statutory entitlements created by law).
A key weakness highlighted by critics is the imbalance between legal identity and statutory protection: even though individual identity is recognised, the relational life of queer individuals remains legally unaddressed. On the other hand, the majority’s deference to Parliament aligns with structural separation-of-powers principles, avoiding judicial overreach into complex statutory webs involving inheritance, succession, and custody.
References
[1] Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348, paras 113, 145–150 (per Bhat, J.).
[2] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
[3] National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
