Case Summary: Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India 2023 INSC 920

Case Title: Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 INSC 920
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha
Date of Judgement: 17 October 2023
Provisions Involved: Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India

Brief Facts of the Case

In November 2022, petitioners Supriyo, also known as Supriya Chakraborty, and Abhay Dang, representing 21 same-sex couples, petitioned the Supreme Court for the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They petitioned the Court to exercise its judicial review authority to enforce their fundamental rights and to advocate for the public interest on behalf of millions of other LGBTQIA+ individuals in India.

Earlier in 2023, the Supreme Court bench, presided over by the Chief Justice, conducted an extensive ten-day hearing on same-sex marriage, deferred the matter until May 2023, and referred the case to a Constitution Bench. The judgment was ultimately rendered on 17 October 2023.

Although India has made significant progress in acknowledging the rights of its LGBTQIA+ residents, legalising same-sex marriage remains a contentious issue. The petitioners argued that the failure to recognise same-sex marriage constitutes a breach of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Involved

1. Equality Before the Law: The primary question was whether same-sex couples possess equivalent legal rights as heterosexual couples, particularly concerning inheritance, shared property ownership, taxation, healthcare decisions and adoption. The petitioners argued that the denial of these rights on the basis of sexual orientation violates constitutional protections under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.

2. Legal Acknowledgement of Relationships: The Supreme Court in Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India evaluated whether the current legal framework, particularly the Special Marriage Act, 1954, unjustly excludes same-sex couples by defining marriage exclusively as a relationship between a man and a woman. The Court examined whether individuals had a fundamental right to establish civil unions regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and whether the State is constitutionally obligated to formally acknowledge such unions.

3. The Role of the State Versus Individual Autonomy: The Court assessed whether the State possesses the jurisdiction to regulate personal relationships such as marriage, or whether individuals should retain full autonomy to select their partners and seek formal recognition of their unions.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments

The freedom to marry for non-heterosexual couples is intrinsic to Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, and marriage equality must encompass the entire spectrum of sexual orientations, not solely the gay-lesbian binary.
Exclusion based on intrinsic and core personal traits is unjustifiable, because there is no intelligible differentia between LGBTQIA+ individuals and non-LGBTQIA+ individuals for the purposes of marriage law.
The Special Marriage Act, 1954, should be revised to define marriage as a union between spouses rather than between a “man and a woman,” rendering it gender-neutral; alternatively, Section 4(c) of the Act should be declared unconstitutional.
Civil unions do not serve as a substitute for the social and legal institution of marriage. Consigning the queer community to civil unions would convey a message of second-class status.

Respondents’ Arguments

The judiciary is not the appropriate institution to legislate on this issue. Parliament is the sole institution qualified to confer a new socio-legal status of marriage upon LGBTQIA+ individuals.
The Special Marriage Act is legislation designed for heterosexual unions; declaring it void would regress India to the pre-independence period, when individuals of differing caste, faith and belief were prohibited from marrying one another, thereby undermining the objective of progressive legislation.
Legalising same-sex marriages would alter the social structure and could have repercussions for established family systems.

Judgement

On 17 October 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha, rendered a 3:2 split verdict. The key holdings were as follows:

The Special Marriage Act indirectly discriminates against LGBTQ+ individuals by omitting them from its ambit.
The legal acknowledgement of same-sex unions would affirm the dignity, equality and autonomy of LGBTQIA+ individuals.
The Supreme Court clarified that, while the Constitution safeguards individual autonomy in relationships, it does not confer a fundamental right to marry. Consequently, the judiciary lacked the authority to direct Parliament to modify or reinterpret marriage legislation to encompass LGBTQ+ couples.
The majority also denied unmarried LGBTQ+ couples the right to jointly adopt. The Court maintained the existing legal structure that permits adoption by heterosexual married couples and single individuals. The dissenting judges criticised this stance, asserting that parental fitness should not be assessed on the basis of sexual orientation, as such assessments reinforce unconstitutional stereotypes.

Critical Analysis

Separation of Powers and Fundamental Rights
The Supreme Court has undeniably made significant efforts to expand rights for the LGBTQIA+ community within its constitutional jurisdiction. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his dissenting opinion, sought to accord a marriage-like status to the civil union of two individuals. He emphasised the practical significance of Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(e), 21 and 25 of the Constitution, asserting that violence against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity obstructs their freedom to settle and form unions. The question of interpreting unenumerated rights gained renewed importance following the Court’s decision in RC Cooper v. Union of India, which held that fundamental rights are inter-connected and that the principle of fairness under Article 14 is inseparable from the rights guaranteed under Article 21.

Extent of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
The petitioners proposed either the adoption of a workability model or the striking down of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act. If the Court were to adopt the first approach and interpret the Act’s language consistently with related legislation, such as the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it would risk encroaching upon the legislative domain. The judiciary cannot assume responsibilities of such extensive scope, given its institutional limitations. Equally, seeking a declaration that the Special Marriage Act is unconstitutional for under-inclusion would face its own limitations, since the Court cannot itself supply the missing legislative framework.

References

Case Law

• RC Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 (India).
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 — Decriminalised same-sex relations; recognised LGBTQ+ dignity under Article 21.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right, encompassing sexual orientation.
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), (2014) 5 SCC 438 — Recognised transgender persons as a third gender; affirmed rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 — Established the inter-connectedness of Articles 14, 19 and 21; expanded the right to dignity.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 189 — Reaffirmed individual autonomy and equality in personal relationships. [Note: please verify citation independently.]

Books

• Baxi, Upendra, The Future of Human Rights (3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2008) — Examines expanding constitutional protections for marginalised communities, including sexual minorities.
• Narrain, Arvind and Gupta, Alok (eds.), Law Like Love: Queer Perspectives on Law (Yoda Press, 2011) — Analyses the intersection of law and queer identity in India.
  Seervai, H.M., Constitutional Law of India (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, 1991) — Foundational treatise on Articles 14, 15 and 21, including the equality doctrine.
• Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, 1977) — Argues that individual rights cannot be overridden by legislative majorities; supports minority opinion reasoning.
  Dhagamwar, Vasudha, Law, Power and Justice (Sage Publications, 1992) — Examines the exclusion of marginalised communities from personal law frameworks.

Journal Articles

• Narrain, Arvind, “The Articulation of Rights Around Sexuality and Health,” Health and Human Rights Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2004) — Examines constitutional litigation as a tool for securing queer rights in India.
• Jaising, Indira, “Gender Justice and the Supreme Court,” Supreme Court Cases Journal, Vol. 1 (2007) — Argues for an expansive interpretation of Article 15 to cover sexual orientation discrimination.
• Chandrachud, Abhinav, “Wedded to the Constitution? Marriage Equality and the Indian Supreme Court,” Indian Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2023) — Analyses the constitutional dimensions of the same-sex marriage petitions.