Menu

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India

Case Comment, Publications

Rashmi Singh Negi

Asian Law College

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India 2023 INSC 920

1. Facts

The case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of LGBTQ+ rights in India. The petitioners, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, a same-sex couple, approached the Supreme Court of India to seek legal recognition of their marriage. They were joined by other petitioners representing various same-sex couples. The petitioners argued that the non-recognition of their marriage violated their fundamental rights enshrined under the Indian Constitution, specifically Articles 14 (Equality before the law), 19 (Freedom of expression), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty).

This case emerges from the aftermath of the landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality by striking down parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. While the Navtej judgment recognized the right of LGBTQ+ individuals to express their identity without fear of prosecution, it did not address the broader issue of marriage equality or civil rights related to same-sex couples. The petitioners in this case argued that denying them the right to marry amounted to systemic discrimination and exclusion, perpetuating societal stigma.

The petitioners sought relief under various laws, including the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which provides a framework for interfaith and civil marriages in India. They contended that the Act’s language, which implicitly assumes heterosexual unions, should be interpreted expansively to include same-sex couples. The case highlights the tension between India’s evolving constitutional jurisprudence on equality and the traditional societal norms that resist recognizing same-sex relationships as equal.

2. Issues Raised

The case brought several critical constitutional and legal issues to the forefront:

  1. Recognition of Marriage Rights: The petitioners sought recognition of their right to marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They contended that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage laws violates their fundamental rights. This issue is particularly significant because marriage is a legal institution that grants various rights and privileges, including inheritance, tax benefits, and spousal rights.
  2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners argued that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples infringes upon their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They claimed that such denial perpetuates inequality and discrimination, undermining their dignity and personal liberty.
  3. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: Excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is prohibited under the Constitution. The petitioners argued that this exclusion stigmatizes LGBTQ+ individuals and denies them equal protection under the law.
  4. Interpretation of Existing Laws: The petitioners raised the issue of whether the gender-specific language in the Special Marriage Act and other laws can be interpreted inclusively to accommodate same-sex unions. They argued that the judiciary has the power to read down or reinterpret the provisions to align them with constitutional principles of equality.
  5. Public Policy and Societal Norms: The case also addressed the broader question of whether recognizing same-sex marriages would contravene public policy or disrupt societal norms. This issue reflects the tension between progressive constitutional values and traditional cultural beliefs.

3. Contentions

Petitioners’ Contentions:

  1. Violation of Equality and Non-Discrimination: The petitioners emphasized that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage laws violates the principle of equality under Article 14. They argued that denying them the right to marry perpetuates systemic discrimination and marginalization, relegating them to second-class citizenship.
  2. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The petitioners invoked Article 21, arguing that the right to marry is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. They contended that marriage is a fundamental aspect of human dignity, autonomy, and personal fulfillment, and its denial to same-sex couples infringes upon these rights.
  3. Freedom of Expression: Under Article 19, the petitioners asserted their right to express their identity through marriage. They argued that marriage is a profound expression of love, commitment, and identity, and denying same-sex couples this right suppresses their ability to live authentically.
  4. Inclusive Interpretation of Laws: The petitioners urged the Court to interpret the Special Marriage Act and other relevant laws in a gender-neutral manner. They argued that such an interpretation would align the laws with constitutional principles and global trends toward marriage equality.
  5. Global Precedents: The petitioners cited international examples where same-sex marriage has been recognized, including the United States, Canada, South Africa, and several European countries. They argued that India, as a progressive democracy, should align with these global trends and uphold the principles of equality and dignity.Respondents’ Contentions:
  1. Preservation of Societal Norms: The Union of India argued that marriage, as traditionally understood in Indian society, is a union between a man and a woman. They contended that recognizing same-sex marriages would disrupt societal and cultural norms and challenge deeply ingrained values.
  2. Legislative Domain: The respondents emphasized that matters related to marriage and family fall within the legislative domain. They argued that any change in the legal framework should be made by Parliament, reflecting the democratic will of the people, rather than through judicial intervention.
  3. Public Policy Considerations: The respondents raised concerns about the potential implications of recognizing same-sex marriages on various laws, including those related to inheritance, adoption, and maintenance. They argued that such recognition would require comprehensive legislative reforms.
  4. Alternative Rights: The respondents suggested that same-sex couples could be granted certain rights through civil unions or other legal mechanisms without equating them to marriage. They argued that such an approach would address the concerns of LGBTQ+ individuals without disrupting the traditional concept of marriage.

4. Rationale

The case brought to light the evolving understanding of constitutional morality and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights. The petitioners’ arguments were deeply rooted in the principles of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, which have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments.

The petitioners relied heavily on the doctrine of progressive interpretation, arguing that laws must evolve to reflect the changing social realities and aspirations of individuals. The judiciary has previously employed this doctrine to expand the scope of fundamental rights, as seen in cases like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

At the heart of the petitioners’ rationale was the principle that denying same-sex couples the right to marry amounts to treating them as second-class citizens. They contended that the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws, and any exclusionary practices that perpetuate discrimination must be struck down.

The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the argument that marriage is a socio-legal institution deeply rooted in cultural and religious traditions. They contended that any attempt to redefine marriage must be made through legislative processes, reflecting the will of the people. The respondents also raised concerns about the potential implications of recognizing same-sex marriages on other laws, including those related to adoption, succession, and maintenance.

5. Defects of Law

The case highlighted several defects in the existing legal framework:

  1. Heteronormative Language: The Special Marriage Act and other marriage laws in India use gender-specific terms, implicitly excluding same-sex couples. This reflects a broader societal bias that fails to recognize diverse family structures.
  2. Lack of Civil Union Laws: Unlike many countries that provide for civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, India lacks a legal framework to grant such couples even basic rights and protections.
  3. Inconsistencies in Rights: While the Navtej Singh Johar judgment decriminalized homosexuality, it did not address the broader civil rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, creating a gap between decriminalization and full equality.
  4. Absence of Legislative Action: Despite the progressive judgments of the judiciary, the legislature has not taken proactive steps to address the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, leaving them reliant on piecemeal judicial interventions.

6. Inference

The case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India underscores the ongoing struggle for marriage equality in India. It highlights the tension between constitutional principles of equality and societal norms rooted in tradition. While the judiciary has played a crucial role in advancing LGBTQ+ rights, the lack of legislative action remains a significant hurdle.

The petitioners’ arguments reflect a broader movement towards recognizing the dignity and autonomy of individuals, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Their demand for marriage equality is not just about legal rights but also about social acceptance and inclusion. By seeking recognition under the Special Marriage Act, they aimed to challenge the heteronormative assumptions underlying Indian marriage laws and advocate for a more inclusive legal framework.

At the same time, the case raises important questions about the role of the judiciary in shaping social policy. While the judiciary has a duty to uphold constitutional rights, issues related to marriage and family often require nuanced considerations of cultural and societal factors. The respondents’ arguments highlight the need for a broader public discourse on marriage equality and the importance of legislative action in addressing these issues.

In conclusion, the case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India represents a critical juncture in India’s journey towards equality and inclusion. It underscores the need for a comprehensive legal framework that recognizes the rights of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, and affirms their dignity and equality under the law.