Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India

Case Name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India,

AIR 2023 SC 5283

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P. S. Narasimha

Date of Judgement: 17^th October, 2023

Parties Involved:

• Petitioners: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Another
• Respondents: Union of India

Facts of the Case:

The case was filed before the Supreme Court by same-sex couples and persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community. They approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution with the request that their marriages be given legal recognition. According to the petitioners, although the Constitution promises equality to all citizens, the present marriage laws do not permit them to marry only because of who they love.

The main challenge was to the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as is allows marriage of heterosexual couples only. Due to this same-sex couples are being excluded from the protection or from the institution of civil marriage in India. This exclusion also puts the impact on the daily lives of same-sex couples as they are also not provided with the rights which a heterosexual couple enjoy in daily lives.

The Union of India opposed the petitions and argued that marriage is regulated by law and social policy. According to the Union, allowing same-sex marriage would affect many other laws and therefore such a change should be made only by Parliament and not by the Court.

In view of the importance of the issues involved, the matter was heard by a five-judges Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether the right to marry is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from the protection of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, violates their right to equality or puts an impact on their dignity due to denial of marriage?
3. Whether the court can expand or change the laws according to their interpretation or it is the take of parliament?

Arguments of the Parties:

1. Petitioners (Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Another)

• Claims that there is a violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of the same-sex couples by denying right to marriage.
• The Special Marriage Act, 1954 without reasonable Jurisdiction excludes same-sex couples from its protection by denying Marital rights to homosexual couples.
• Denial of marriage deprives them form social and legal rights.

2. Respondent (Union of India)

• The Union argued that marriage is a statutory institution governed by law and social policy, not a fundamental right.
• Any recognition of same-sex marriage would affect several existing laws and personal law frameworks.
• Such changes, it was submitted, fall within the exclusive domain of Parliament and not judicial interpretation.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court decided the case by a 3:2 majority and did not recognise same-sex marriage under the present marriage laws. The majority judges felt that the Constitution does not clearly say that marriage is a fundamental right. The court also specifies that to make any changes or expand the Special Marriage Act, 1954, it is for the parliament to decide because courts cannot change the laws by interpreting it differently.

Judges who were not in the favor pointed out that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples would leads to violation of their dignity. They said that this exclusion is not just theoretical and creates real problems in daily life.

Even though Court refused right to marry for same-sex couples, but it made clear that the people from LGBTQ+ community will be treated equally and there shall be no discrimination against them on their basis rights and provided them welfare benefits.

Ratio Decidendi:

The main basis of the Court’s decision was that marriage is not treated as a fundamental right under the Constitution. The Supreme Court felt that marriage exists because it is provided for by law, and its scope depends on how the legislature has framed it. The judges were of the view that the Court cannot on its own change marriage laws or expand their meaning.

They also said that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was written in a specific form, and including same-sex couples within it would go beyond interpretation and amount to changing the law itself. For this reason, the Court held that the question of recognising same-sex marriage must be decided by Parliament and not by the judiciary.

Obiter Dicta:

While making the judgement court also made some observations. It pointed out the difficulties faced by LGBTQ+ community in their daily lives due to non-recognition of their relationship. These difficulties put impacts on their dignity and equality.  

It further observed that the State should take steps to make sure that queer persons are not treated unfairly or kept out of basic facilities. These observations were not part of the main reasoning of the judgment, but they showed the Court’s concern for fairness and equality.

Conclusion:

This case shows that although the Constitution speaks about equality and dignity, the law on marriage has not yet moved in that direction. The Supreme Court in this case stated that it is for the parliament to make the law gender neutral. Also accepted that there is a need for protection of LGBTQ+ community rights so that there shall be no discrimination against them on the basis of their identity. It also reminds the State that it has a responsibility to treat queer persons fairly and allow them to live with dignity like everyone else.