Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India

• Citation: 2023 INSC 920
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha
• Date of Judgement: October 17, 2023
• Provisions Involved: Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of Indian Constitution

Brief Facts of 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 weddings under the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969, and the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. They petitioned the court to employ its judicial review authority to enforce their fundamental rights and advocate for the public interest on behalf of millions of other LGBTQIA+ individuals in India.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court bench, presided over by the Chief Justice, extensively deliberated on same-sex marriage over a ten-day hearing, deferring the matter until May 2023 and referring the case to a constitutional bench. The judgement 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, which they wanted to uphold through their appeal.

Issues Involved

• Equality Before the Law: The primary inquiry 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 based on sexual orientation violates constitutional protections under Article 14, Article 15, Article 19, and Article 21.
• Legal Acknowledgement of Relationships: The Supreme Court in Supriya Chakraborty versus relationship of India evaluated whether the current legal framework, particularly the Special Marriage Act, 1954, unjustly excludes same-sex couples by rigorously defining marriage 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.
• The Role of the State Versus Individual Autonomy: The Court assessed whether the State possesses the jurisdiction to regulate personal partnerships such as marriage, or if people should retain complete autonomy to select their partners and pursue formal acknowledgement of their unions.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The freedom to marry for non-heterosexual couples is intrinsic to Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, and marriage equality must include the entire spectrum of sexual orientations, not solely the gay-lesbian binary.

The exclusion based on ‘intrinsic and core traits’ is unjustifiable, because there is no ‘intelligible differentia’ between LGBTQIA+ individuals and non-LGBTQIA+ individuals.

The Special Marriage Act of 1954 should be revised to define marriage as a union between spouses rather than “man and woman,” so rendering it gender-neutral and declaring Section 4(c) of the SMA.

Civil unions do not serve as a substitute for the social and legal institution of marriage. Designating the queer community to civil unions would unequivocally convey a message of servitude.

Respondent’s Arguments.

The judiciary is not the suitable entity 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 exclusively for heterosexuals, and 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. The objective of progressive legislation would be undermined.

Legalising same-sex weddings will modify the social structure, resulting in an imbalance that could have repercussions for family systems.

Judgement

On 17 October 2023, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and including Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, rendered a 3:2 split verdict in the case of Supriyo vs Union of India regarding same-sex marriage.

The Special Marriage Act indirectly discriminates against LGBTQ+ individuals by omitting them.

The legal acknowledgement of same-sex unions will validate 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 basic right to marry. Consequently, the judiciary lacked the authority to mandate Parliament to modify or reinterpret marriage legislation to encompass LGBT couples.

The majority ruling in Supriyo vs Union of India also denied unmarried LGBT couples the right to adopt together. They maintained the existing legal structure that allows adoption by both heterosexual married couples and single individuals. The opposing judges criticised this stance, asserting that parental fitness should not be evaluated based on sexual orientation, as such judgements reinforce unconstitutional stereotypes.

Critical Analysis

Separation of Powers and Fundamental Rights

The Apex Court has undeniably exerted diligent efforts to grant numerous rights to the LGBTQIA+ community within its jurisdiction. Justice DY Chandrachud, in his dissenting opinion, commendably aimed to grant a marriage-like status to the civil union of two individuals. He emphasised the practical significance of pivotal constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(c), (e), (a), 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, asserting that violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity obstructs their freedom to settle and form unions. The way to understand rights that are not specifically listed became important after the Court’s decision in RC Cooper v. Union of India, which found that basic rights are connected and that the idea of fairness in Article 14 also applies to Article 21.

Extent of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

The petition signatories proposed the use of the workability model or the removal of Section 4 of the SMA. If the court decides to adhere to the first approach and interpret the language in accordance with the SMA and other laws, such as the Indian Succession Act of 1925 and the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, it will be infringing on the rights of the legislature. The judiciary is unable to assume responsibilities of such extensive scope due to institutional limitations. It would be pointless to try to get the SMA declared illegal because it doesn’t include enough people, since the court can’t do anything about it.

References

Case Law

1. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 — Decriminalised same-sex relations; recognised LGBTQ+ dignity under Article 21.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Recognised Right to Privacy as a fundamental right including sexual orientation.
3. NALSA vs Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438 — Recognised transgender persons as third gender; affirmed rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
4. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 — Established interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21; expanded right to dignity.
5. Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 — Reaffirmed individual autonomy and equality in personal relationships.

Books

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

Journal Articles

11. 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.
12. Jaising, Indira — “Gender Justice and the Supreme Court” — Supreme Court Cases Journal, Vol. 1 (2007) — Argues for expansive interpretation of Article 15 to cover sexual orientation discrimination.
13. Chandrachud, Abhinav — “Wedded to the Constitution? Marriage Equality and the Indian Supreme Court” — Indian Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2023) — Analyses constitutional dimensions of same-sex marriage petitions.