Menu

SUPRIYO CHAKRABORTY & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA

Case Comment, Publications

CITATION – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022 COURT – Supreme Court of India

JUDGES – Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha

DATE OF JUDGEMENT- 17th October, 2023

FACTS
  1. On behalf of 21 same-sex couples, Supriyo, also known as Supriya Chakraborty, and Abhay Dang petitioned the Apex Court in November 2022 to recognise same-sex weddings under the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969, and the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. In the public interest and on behalf of lakhs of crores of other LGBTQIA+ Indian people, they petitioned the court to use its judicial review authority to vindicate their own fundamental rights.
  2. During a ten-day hearing in previous to previous year, the Chief Justice-led Supreme Court bench discussed same-sex marriage in great detail, postponing it until May 2023 and sending the case to a constitutional bench. On October 17, 2023, the verdict was finally given.
  1. Even though India has made significant progress in acknowledging the rights of its LGBTQIA+ residents, same-sex marriage is still a contentious issue. The petitioners said that their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution were violated by the non-recognition of same-sex marriage, which they are attempting to enforce through their petition
ISSUE RAISED

The issues raised were :-

  1. Does the law treat same-sex couples fairly? Regarding things like inheritance, joint property ownership, adoption, taxes, relocation abroad, and health care, do they have the same rights as normal couples?
  2. Does society appreciate and embrace LGBTQ+ individuals and their relationships? Particularly in locations where customs or religious beliefs may forbid same-sex partnerships?
  1. What effects do same-sex partnerships have on people’s perceptions of gender roles, what constitutes normal love and sex, and what are the ideals of marriage and family?
  2. Who has the authority to determine whether same-sex marriage should be permitted—should the government set the guidelines or should people be free to make their own decisions? And how do the courts decide whether or not same-sex marriage is acceptable?
CONTENTIONS FROM PETITIONERS SIDE :-
  1. Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 guarantee non-heterosexual couples the right to marry, and marriage equality must take into account all sexual orientations, not just the gay-lesbian binary.
  2. There are no “intelligible differentia” between LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ people, therefore it is unreasonable to exclude someone based on “intrinsic and core traits.”
  1. The 1954 Special Marriage Act has to be changed to read “marriage between spouses” rather than “man and woman” and become gender-neutral.
  2. Civil unions are no alternative to the social and legal institution of marriage. Relegating the queer community to civil unions would be a clear message of subordination.
  1. There is no ‘legitimate state interest’ on the part of the government to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.
  2. If an Indo-American non-heterosexual couple’s marriage is registered in the United States, it may be recognised in India under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969.
CONTENTIONS FROM RESPONDENT SIDE:-
  1. The judiciary is not the right entity to enact laws on the subject. The only body qualified to give LGBTQIA+ people a new “socio-legal status of marriage” is Parliament.
  1. The Special Marriage Act was passed specifically for heterosexuals, and if it were declared invalid, India would revert to the pre-independence period, when it was illegal for two people of different castes, religions, and beliefs to get married. Progressive legislation would no longer serve its intended goal.
  1. The state is justified in treating heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals differently as the entire architecture of laws is to safeguard the interests and welfare of the children naturally born to heterosexual couples.
  2. The respondents argued that the current situation is “polycentric,” which will undoubtedly imp act numerous legal provisions, while the findings in Navtej Singh Johar and Shafin Jahan were ” monocentric’’
  3. Legalising same-sex unions would change the social structure, causing an imbalance that would have an impact on family structures.
  4. Over 160 legislations and laws would need to be changed in order to accommodate marriage equality.

RATIONALE

The Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry. An institution cannot be elevated to the realm of a fundamental right based on the content accorded to it by law.

However, several facets of the marital relationship are reflections of constitutional values including the right to human dignity and the right to life and personal liberty;

JUDGEMENT

The constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by CJI DY Chandrachud, comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha delivered the split 3:2 verdict in Supriyo v. Union of India on 17th October 2023. The Supreme Court declined to grant legal recognition to non- heterosexual marriages under the existing law. The court said that the right to marriage is not a fundamental right and is not guaranteed by the constitution. While the court did not approve equal marriage, it did recognize the rights of non- heterosexual couples. Additionally, it held that the matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the court and the Parliament is the appropriate forum for the same due to a large number of legislations and provisions involved. Following are the further observations:-

  1. The court held that it cannot strike down or read differently the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It said that this is a matter of policy and legislation, not of interpretation or constitutional rights.
  1. The bench said that it cannot create a new category of civil unions for same-sex couples, as it would amount to legislating from the bench.
  2. The court, however, acknowledged that same-sex couples have the right to live with dignity and privacy and that their relationships are entitled to protection. It issued several directions and guidelines to the Centre, States and Police forces to ensure that the queer community is not discriminated against or harassed on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  1. The bench said that the state has legitimate interest necessitating action in regulating marriage as a legal and social institution and it cannot transgress into the legislative domain and direct it to recognise queer marriage through legislation.
  2. In their minority opinion, Justices Chandrachud and Kaul supported same-sex civil partnership

,tying this right to freedom of speech and life. In order to encourage inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community, they viewed civil unions as distinct from marriages and provided legal protection without changing marriage rules.

  1. In contrast, the majority was composed of Justices Bhat and Kohli, with Justice Narasimha concurring. They argued that present laws do not allow the court to recognise same-sex weddings. They proposed that Parliament should amend regulations pertaining to same-sex unions and stressed that marriage is not a fundamental right. They also pointed out the different legal ramifications of marriage and civil unions and argued against courts establishing a new category similar to civil unions since they believed it was beyond their authority.
  2. However, the “Right to live with dignity and privacy and that their relationships are entitled to respect and protection” was recognised by all five judges. To guarantee that the queer community is not subjected to harassment or discrimination because of their gender identity or

sexual orientation, they issued a number of directives and guidelines to the federal government, states, and law enforcement agencies. They added that being queer is a long-standing natural phenomena that is not limited to affluent or urban areas. They claimed that LGBT people contribute to India’s culture and society and are a part of its diversity and plurality.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriage captures the legal and social complexity of the issue. Legally, it balanced constitutional values, saying marriage isn’t a fundamental right and should be decided by lawmakers, not the court. Justice Chandrachud’s opinion supporting civil unions added depth to the legal debate. Alongside anti-discrimination laws, the ruling promotes a more inclusive society by acknowledging the historical presence of LGBTQIA+ individuals in Indian culture. Although it doesn’t fully address the objectives of the LGBTQIA+ community, it is an important step in the direction of equal rights. It promotes constant dialogue and works to alter society and the law. It demonstrates how the law changes with society to guarantee equality and justice for all.

BY : – ANANYA DUGGAL

COLLEGE – DOGRA LAW COLLEGE , JAMMU