Supriyo @ Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023)

Abstract

This case analysis examines Supriyo @ Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, decided by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India on 17 October 2023. The judgment addressed the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry or to receive formal legal recognition of their unions under Indian law. By a majority of 3:2, the Court declined to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, holding that no fundamental right to marry exists under the Constitution and that any recognition of such unions is a matter for the legislature. The decision is significant both for what it affirms, the equal dignity and identity of LGBTQ+ individuals, and for what it withholds: the enforcement of that dignity through legal recognition.

Case Details

Case Name: Supriyo @ Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices S.K. Kaul, S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli, P.S. Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2023
Citation: (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1348

Facts

A number of writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of India by homosexual couples and members of the LGBTQ+ community demanding legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India, particularly under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The petitions highlighted the systemic discrimination same-sex couples faced due to the absence of legal recognition of their unions, despite the earlier decriminalization of same-sex relations between consenting adults. This lack of recognition excluded them from a range of social, legal, and economic benefits available to heterosexual married couples, including rights relating to inheritance, adoption, taxation, insurance, and property ownership.

Beyond these formal entitlements, same-sex couples also faced practical hardships in everyday life, including difficulties in opening joint bank accounts, nominating partners for employment benefits, accessing healthcare in emergencies, and securing housing free from discrimination. Their relationships continued to be treated as unacceptable by various institutions and segments of society.

The petitions specifically challenged the constitutional validity of provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and other personal laws, on the ground that these provisions were, by their terms, restricted to heterosexual couples. The petitioners sought either a gender-neutral judicial interpretation of such provisions, or a declaration that their exclusion from these laws was unconstitutional.

Given the constitutional significance of the questions raised, the matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The central question before the Bench was whether the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity encompass a legal right of same-sex couples to marry, or whether their relationships ought to be separately and formally recognized under other Indian laws.

Issues

1. Whether the right to marry is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from personal and statutory marriage laws violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the Court can give a gender-neutral interpretation to existing marriage laws.
4. Whether queer couples have a legal right to form civil unions or to receive formal legal recognition of their relationships.

Arguments

Petitioners
The petitioners argued that denying same-sex couples legal recognition of their marriages violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

The right to marry out of personal choice, they submitted, forms an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.[1]

Further, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage amounts to an unreasonable classification, thereby violating Article 14.[2] There is no rational nexus between the distinction drawn between heterosexual and homosexual couples and the objectives of marriage laws, which confer a range of civil benefits exclusively on heterosexual couples.

The petitioners relied on the judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[3] which recognized sexual orientation as an intrinsic aspect of a person’s identity. Denying the right to marry equally to homosexual couples, they argued, compromises the recognition of LGBTQ+ persons as equal citizens entitled to equal constitutional rights.

Freedom of expression and the right to form associations under Articles 19(1)(a)[4] and 19(1)(c)[5] were also invoked, as encompassing the right to express one’s identity and to form legally recognized unions.

The petitioners further highlighted the concrete adverse consequences of non-recognition — including denial of adoption rights, succession rights, joint ownership of property, tax benefits, and insurance nominations.

Finally, the petitioners urged the Court to adopt a purposive and transformative interpretation of the existing marriage laws, reading their provisions in a gender-neutral manner. Such an interpretation, they argued, would give effect to the spirit and constitutional morality of the Constitution without requiring legislative amendment.

Respondent (Union of India)
The Union of India submitted that the conventional understanding of marriage, as reflected across statutory and personal laws, is that of a union between a biological male and a biological female. Social acceptance of homosexual unions in India is still evolving, and the Court ought therefore to exercise restraint in this domain.

The Union argued that there is no explicit fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. Although certain judgments have recognised elements of this right, those decisions cannot automatically be extended to same-sex marriages.

The Union further relied on the principle of separation of powers, contending that the petitioners were in substance seeking a judicial rewriting of the Special Marriage Act, a function that belongs exclusively to the legislature.

Moreover, any judicial amendment to marriage laws to include same-sex couples would generate a series of inconsistencies across related legislation governing adoption, succession, maintenance, and personal laws.

Finally, the Union emphasised that while LGBTQ+ individuals deserve protection from discrimination, this does not require the immediate extension of marriage rights. Any such legal framework, if needed, should emerge through legislative deliberation rather than judicial intervention.

Judgment

The Supreme Court refused to legalise same-sex marriage by a majority of 3:2.

Majority Opinion (Justices S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli, P.S. Narasimha):
There is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, and judicial intervention in this matter would amount to a rewriting of the Special Marriage Act. The question of recognition of same-sex unions must accordingly be left to the legislature.

Minority Opinion (CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul):
Queer couples have a right to form unions, including in the form of marriage, and deserve legal recognition and protection of that right. The minority opinion also proposed administrative steps toward such recognition.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, and the judiciary cannot include same-sex couples within the existing statutory marriage framework without engaging in judicial legislation. Any such recognition must come from Parliament.

Critical Analysis

The decision in Supriyo v. Union of India attempts to balance constitutional ideals and the doctrine of judicial restraint. Although the apex court acknowledged that members of the LGBTQ+ community are equal citizens possessing the same rights to identity and dignity as heterosexual individuals, it nonetheless declined to extend that recognition to the formal institution of marriage.

The Gap Between Principle and Practice
The most striking feature of the judgment is the distance between the recognition of rights in principle and their enforcement in practice. The Court reaffirmed that queer people deserve protection from discrimination and that their relationships carry dignity and worth. Yet it declined to translate these affirmations into enforceable rights by refusing to include same-sex couples within the institution of marriage. This gap raises a foundational question: can the enforcement of constitutional rights, particularly those of minorities and marginalized communities, be left to legislative will?

Judicial Restraint and Its Limits
The majority’s cautious approach is grounded in the concept of separation of powers. However, this position is open to challenge. Prior to this judgment, the Supreme Court had on several occasions adopted expansive interpretations of the law to widen the scope of fundamental rights. Most notably, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India,[6] the Court struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, allowing constitutional ideals to prevail over prevailing social morality. In Supriyo, by contrast, the Court retreated to a position of judicial minimalism, acknowledging LGBTQ+ rights in the abstract while leaving any meaningful enforcement to the legislature.

The Minority’s Progressive Framework
The minority opinion adopts a more progressive approach, rooted in the idea that the Constitution is a living document that evolves in response to the needs of society. Attempting to bridge the gap left by the majority, the minority acknowledged the right of queer people to form unions and the necessity of legal recognition and protection for such relationships.

The Question of Statutory Interpretation
Another notable aspect of the judgment is the Court’s refusal to interpret the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in a gender-neutral manner. Courts have historically employed various tools of statutory interpretation to harmonise legislation with constitutional values. The unwillingness to do so here represents a missed opportunity to advance equality through interpretive means alone, without requiring a new legislative framework.

A Constructive Step
A positive element of the judgment is the Court’s direction to the State to constitute a committee to examine the rights of queer people and identify protections required. The Court’s reluctance to intervene directly is also understandable given that marriage is not only a legal institution but a deeply cultural and, for many, religious one. Nevertheless, marginalized communities frequently depend upon judicial intervention for the protection of their rights precisely because they lack the majoritarian support necessary to secure legislative change.

The verdict is ultimately a mixed one, progressive enough to recognize the rights and dignity of queer individuals, yet conservative enough to leave the enforcement of those rights entirely to legislative will.

Conclusion

The decision in Supriyo v. Union of India represents a missed opportunity for the judiciary to proactively defend LGBTQ+ rights in India in its capacity as the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution. While the judgment affirmed the dignity of queer individuals in principle, it failed to translate that affirmation into enforceable legal rights, underscoring the uncomfortable truth that constitutional recognition without legal enforcement remains incomplete. As India continues to grapple with the evolving rights of its LGBTQ+ citizens, the responsibility now rests with the legislature, and one hopes it will be discharged with the same sense of constitutional commitment that the minority judges demonstrated in this case.

References

[1] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[3] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India).
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a).
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(c).
[6] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India) (supra note 3).