Published on: 27th August 2026
Authored by: Hetvi Gandhi
KES Shri Jayantilal H Patel Law College
Case Details
Case Name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India[1]
Citation: 2023 INSC 920 / (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1348
Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2023
Petition Type: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022 and connected matters
Provisions Considered: Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, and 32 of the Constitution of India;[2] Special Marriage Act, 1954;[3] Foreign Marriage Act, 1969; Adoption Regulations, 2022 (CARA).
Introduction
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India is a landmark judgment addressing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India.[1] The petitioners, comprising LGBTQIA+ individuals and queer couples, challenged the gender-specific provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), alleging violations of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.[1] While the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that LGBTQIA+ individuals possess full constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy, the majority declined to recognize a fundamental right to marry or to judicially interpret the SMA in a gender-neutral manner, leaving legal recognition of same-sex unions to the legislative domain.[1]
Facts of the Case
Several LGBTQIA+ individuals and same-sex couples filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.[1] Building on the jurisprudence of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)[4] and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018),[5] the petitioners submitted that although same-sex relationships were decriminalized and constitutionally protected, queer couples remained excluded from statutory rights tied to marriage, including inheritance, adoption, maintenance, insurance, and emergency medical decision-making.[1]
The Union of India opposed the petitions, contending that marriage is a statutory institution created by Parliament rather than a common-law or natural right.[1] The State argued that modifying the eligibility criteria under the Special Marriage Act fell exclusively within the legislative domain of Parliament, as rewriting the statute would disrupt numerous interconnected personal and welfare laws.[1]
Issues Before the Court
1. Whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from the Special Marriage Act, 1954 violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.[1]
2. Whether the Supreme Court can interpret terms such as “husband” and “wife” in the Special Marriage Act in a gender-neutral manner (e.g., as “spouse”).[1]
3. Whether Regulation 5(3) of the CARA Adoption Regulations, 2022, restricting joint adoption to married couples, is unconstitutional.[1]
4. Whether queer couples possess a constitutional right to legal recognition of civil unions.[1]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions:
The petitioners argued that the right to marry is an essential facet of personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21.[1] Relying on decisions such as Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006),[6] Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018),[7] and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018),[8] counsel submitted that the freedom to select a life partner is a constitutionally protected choice.[1] Denying statutory marriage benefits solely on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes impermissible discrimination under Articles 14 and 15.[1] As a secular enactment, the Special Marriage Act should be interpreted dynamically to guarantee equal citizenship.[1]
Respondents’ Submissions:
The Union Government contended that marriage is a statutory construct governed by legislative policy, not an absolute constitutional right.[1] The SMA was designed to regulate heterosexual unions across religious boundaries, and judicially inserting gender-neutral language would create statutory conflicts across succession, guardianship, adoption, and maintenance frameworks.[1] The State maintained that changing fundamental social and legal institutions requires democratic deliberation by Parliament under the doctrine of separation of powers.[1]
Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
The Constitution Bench delivered a 3:2 split verdict on key statutory issues.[1]
Majority Opinion (Justices Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha):
The majority held that there is no unqualified fundamental right to marry under Part III of the Constitution.[1] Marriage derives its legal enforcement from statutory enactments rather than constitutional mandate.[1] The Judiciary cannot rewrite the Special Marriage Act or create a parallel regime of “civil unions,” as doing so would exceed the judicial role and infringe upon legislative authority.[1] Additionally, the majority upheld the constitutional validity of Regulation 5(3) of the CARA Adoption Regulations, 2022.[1]
Minority Opinion (Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul):
The minority held that queer individuals possess a fundamental right to enter into recognized civil unions and intimate partnerships under Article 21.[1] They concluded that excluding unmarried queer couples from joint adoption under CARA regulations violates Article 14.[1] However, the minority agreed with the majority that the Court could not judicially modify the Special Marriage Act to grant marriage status directly.[1]
Ratio Decidendi:
The Constitution of India does not confer an unqualified fundamental right to marry.[1] The legal institution of marriage is statutory in origin, and any expansion of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to include same-sex unions or civil partnerships falls within the exclusive domain of Parliament.[1] Nevertheless, LGBTQIA+ individuals are fully entitled to protection against discrimination, as well as the guarantees of dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy under Articles 14, 19, and 21.[1]
Critical Analysis
The judgment firmly consolidates the personal rights of LGBTQIA+ citizens by holding that sexual orientation is an protected constitutional ground under Articles 14 and 15.[1] However, legal scholars note a tension within the ruling: while the Court recognized decisional autonomy and intimate partnership as core constitutional entitlements under Article 21, the majority withheld judicial remedies for the tangible financial and social benefits attached to statutory marriage.[1] By directing the Union Government to establish a high-level committee to examine practical administrative rights for queer couples, the Supreme Court deferred the ultimate legal resolution to executive and legislative reform.[1]
Conclusion
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India marks a major milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.[1] While stopping short of establishing marriage equality by judicial decree, the ruling establishes that queer citizens are entitled to full equality, dignity, and autonomy under the law, shifting the battlefield for formal legal recognition to Parliament.[1]
References
[1] Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 920; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1348.
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 32.
[3] Special Marriage Act, 1954, No. 43 of 1954 (India).
[4] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[5] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
[6] Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 475.
[7] Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368.
[8] Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192.
