Date of Judgement: – October 17, 2023
Petitioner: – Supriyo Chakraborty, Abhay Dang, Parth Phiroze Mehrotra, Uday Raj Anand
Respondent: – Union of India
Bench: – CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, J. S.K. Kaul, J. S.R. Bhat, J. Hima Kohli, J. P.S. Narasimha
Introduction
The case of Supriyo @ Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 is a very landmark case filed for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and queer couples under the exist marriage law in India. The court during the proceeding analyzed and relied on the past case such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014), Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of Indian (2017), etc. However, the constitutional bench of five judges declined the demand of legal recognition along with this it also raised the debate regarding the rights of LGBTQIA+ persons and the constitutional morality. The court upheld the validity of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and held that right to marry is not fundamental right.[1]
Facts of the Case
The petitioner consisted of several queer and same-sex couples, where in specifically Supriyo Chakraborty, Abhay Dang, Parth Mehrotra and Uday Raj Anand who challenged the legalization of same-sex marriage. They challenged statutes like Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Marriage Act, 1955 and argued that these statutes unconstitutionally eliminate non-heterosexual couples from marrying.[2] The statute specifically eliminate so by using the gender-specific terminology under section 4 of special marriage Act wherein the validity of the marriage is specified as male of twenty-one year and female of 18 years.[3] This case asked a deep and personal question that does the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to marry the person you love? and also whether there is existence of rights like right to marry? But, the answer to this question was not given completely by the court rather it raised a new topic for conversation about identity, dignity and the limits of judicial power.
The petitioner contented that despite the decriminalization of consensual same-sex relationship under “the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)”, the same-sex or queer couples still face troubles and disrespect in the society not morally but also legally as they were denied to access any marriage institution, along with it they also lacked many legal marriage benefits like adoption, inheritance, succession benefits etc. The petitioner also argued that such denial violated their fundamental rights under article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.[4]
The Union of India opposed the petitions and argued that marriage in India historical has been considered as the unification of a biological man and a biological woman. Further they argued that this matter does not fall under the ambit of judiciary and contented that any modification of marriage law needs complex policy and process which fall under legislative domain.
Considering the issues involved to be constitutionally significant the case was referred to the five-judge constitutional bench in the Supreme Court and the whole proceeding took ten consecutive days to come to a final verdict.
Issues Raised
- Whether right to marry is fundamental right provided under constitution to same-sex couples and denial of marriage equality amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex?
- Whether exclusion of same-se couples from Special Marriage Act, 1954 amounts to violation of their fundamental rights Under article 14,15,19 and 21 of constitution?
- Whether Supreme Court can modify in the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954?
- Whether such couples have constitutional right to form union and families of legal recognition?
Contention of the Parties
Petitioner
The petitioner argued that right to choose life partner is essential part under Article 21 personal freedom and dignity. They argued that the Constitution of India protect the rights of each and every individual irrespective of sex and on any other ground. It was further contended that eliminating same-sex or queer couples from marriage constitutes discrimination as per Article 14 and 15. As per petitioners, under Navtej Singh Johar case court recognized the dignity and equality of the LGBTQIA+ persons but denied them to access to marriage forming an unjustifiable differentiation between queer and heterosexual relationships. The petitioners also argued that “the Special Marriage Act, 1954” is secular Act allowing civil marriages and therefore replacing the gender specific terms with gender neutral terms would not alter the statute rather it would ensure the provisions of the Constitution that is meaningful and equal for every individual. Addition to that the petitioner argued that marriage is linked with many legal rights and social benefits and denying to such rights and benefits excludes the queer couples also from such rights and benefitting schemes.[5]
Respondent
The Union of India that is respondent argued, there is nothing like marriage right expressly mentioned in Indian constitution as fundamental right while, the individual has right to choose their life partners, the legal recognition of marriage remains subject to statutory provisions. Further they argued that “the Special Marriage Act, 1954” was framed with the assumption of heterosexual as marriage as historically in India marriage is considered to be the unification of biological male and female and any modification of replacing the gender specific terms with gender neutral terms means framing and rewriting the whole statute again rather than just adding in addition to that adoption, succession, maintenance, and any other family laws are interconnected with marriage and recognizing the same-sex couples would have wide implication on such every provisions and changing such statute is not the work of judicial body but it should be undertaken by parliament or legislation. Lastly, the government said that questions related to social policy and family structure are best to be answer through proper democratic processes.
Judgement and Rationale
This landmark judgement talks about legal recognition of same-sex marriage where the hon’ble Supreme Court by the majority of 3:2, denied to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages under Special Marriage Act, 1954. The majority decision was given by J. S.R. Bhat, J. Hima Kohli and J. P.S. Narasimha while the minority decision was followed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and J. S.K. Kau. The majority bench answering to issue 1 held that Indian Constitution does not grant any fundamental right to marriage expressly along with it with respect to issue 3 the court said that framing of any legal provisions recognizing same-sex marriage falls under the ambit of legislation and cannot be modified via judicial interpretation. The judges noticed that reading gender-neutral terms into the Special Marriage Act, 1954 would amount rewriting of the entire statute again which will overload the work of the legislation. At the same time the court said that LGBTQIA+ persons the constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, autonomy and freedom of choice. The court also said that it recognizes the queer individual to have liberty to be in relationships without any interference of state and families. The majority that constitutional protection of personal relationships does not automatically translate into a right to obtain legal recognition of those relationships as marriages.
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul adopted more effusive approach. Chief Justice agreeing to that court could not rewrite the Special marriage Act, 1954 held that the queer couples have constitutionally protected right to enter into any union and that the state has the responsibility to address any discrimination faced by such couples due to omission of legal recognition. The judgement highlighted the disadvantage faced by queer couples due to exclusion from various social and economic benefits. Further also the court ordered the Central Government to form a committee leaded by the Cabinet Secretary to examine and recommend measures for extending certain rights and benefits to queer couples.
The judgement also addressed the question of adoption rights, which emerged as a significant aspect of the case. The CJI held that the unmarried queer and non-queer couples should not be barred from adopting children. However, this point was not supported by the majority and therefore legal provision regarding adoption for them remained unchanged.
The rationale behind the majority decision priorly based on the doctrine of separation of powers. The court said that issues related to marriage involve extensive legal, social and policy considerations affecting inheritance, adoption, succession maintenance and family laws and such matters need comprehensive legislative deliberation and democratic decision-making Parliament as the right institution for such reforms. The judges therefore exercised judicial restraint and declined to create a new legal status through constitutional adjudication.
Despite rejecting marriage equality, the judgement is important as it reaffirmed the constitutional identity and dignity of LGBTQIA+ persons. The court directed government to prevent discrimination, protect queer people from any harassment and discrimination and ensure that they have access to public services without any bias and undertake measures to sensitize society regarding ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’.[6] Thus, while the decision denied the recognition of same-sex marriage, it strengthened constitutional protections available to queer people and acknowledged the need for future legislative reforms.[7]
Defects of Law
The judgement has faced criticism on several grounds. First, there appears to be a gap between the court’s recognition of constitutional equality and its denial to provide a corresponding remedy. While the court deal with the discrimination faced by the queer couples but it left the marriage equality question unanswered. Second, the decision reflects a cautious interpretation of judicial power. Critics argue that constitutional courts have historically expanded rights through purposive interpretation and that a similar approach could have been adopted in this case. Third, the judgement creates uncertainty regarding the legal status of queer relationships. Although the court recognized the legal protection, it did not provide a clear legal provision for recognition of their relationship. Fourth, the majority’s reliance on legislative action may delay substantive equality because social and political consensus often develops slowly, leaving affected communities without immediate legal protection.
Lastly, votary of the decision involving family law, succession, and adoption require comprehensive legislative consideration and that judicial restraint was institutionally appropriate.
Inference
The judgement is a case of both advancement and limitation. The court, on the one hand, placed emphasis on dignity, autonomy and equality of LGBTQIA+ persons and directed all governments towards prevention of discrimination against them. On the other hand, however, the court denied marriage rights to same-sex couples and kicked these reforms to the legislature. The judgement is more a milestone in the constitutional evolution of India than the end. The litigation did not achieve marriage equality however; the judgement significantly strengthens the conversation around LGBTQIA+ rights and can further future legislative and judicial development. The matter has been passed on for consideration by a divided constitutional bench regarding the limits and ambit of the judicial power. This judgement will surely become a milestone Indian constitutional law.
Name: – Singh Jagruti Surendra
University Name: – Gujarat National Law University, Silvassa Campus
[1] Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/plea-for-marriage-equality/ (last visited June 2, 2026)
[2] Manupatra, “Legal Progression & Social Implications Case Comment on Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr v. Union Of India” (last visited June 2, 2026)
[3] Special Marriage Act, 1954, §4
[4] Lawctopus, https://www.lawctopus.com/clatogue/clat-pg/supriyo-chakraborty-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-marry/ (last visited June 2, 2026)
[5] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129202312/ (last visited June 3, 2026)
[6] Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/plea-for-marriage-equality/ (last visited June 2, 2026)
[7] South Asian Translaw Database, https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case-law/supriyo-ors-v-union-of-india/ (last visited June 3, 2026)