SUPRIYO@SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY &ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA (2023)  INSC 920

CASE NAME: SUPRIYO@SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY &ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA (2023)  INSC 920

CITATION: Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. Union of India,(2023) INSC 920, decided  on 17^th October 2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition [civil] No. 1011 of 2022  [constitution bench]

BENCH: Chief Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Krishna Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra  Bhat, Justice Hima Kohil, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

FACTS:

• This case began when batch of queer individuals and same-sex couples approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking for legalization of right to marriage as opposite-sex marriage, specially targeting the Special Marriage Act,1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act,  1969.
• The petitioners argued that Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act did not allow them to register their marriage due to their gender or sex orientation.
• The petitioners also argued that the both Acts i.e Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act mentions specific terms referring to man and women for marriage excluding same-sex or gender-non conforming couples. They contended that this amounts to formal and structural discrimination and also violating the constitutional vision of equality and  dignity.
• This matter was heard by constitution bench of Supreme Court following the significant back drop of previous rulings decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts and affirming LGBTQIA+ rights.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the non-recognition of same-sex marriages violates the rights under articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Does the Constitution of India allows the right of same-sex and queer couples to marry under Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act?
3. Whether the right to marry a person of one’s choice is a fundamental right for same-sex and queer individuals?
4. Whether the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act can be interpreted for protecting the rights of queer and same-sex couples regarding right to marry?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

• Petitioner argued that article 19 and 21 guarantees the right to marry a person of one’s choice, which is also applicable to LGBTQIA+ individuals.
• Denial of marriage rights to same-sex and gender diverse couples amounts to violation of the constitutional guarantee based on sexual orientation and gender identity. • Right to marry is intrinsic to personal liberty, autonomy and dignity excluding queer couples from the institution of marriage strips them from social and legal recognition given to  heterosexual couples, there by violating fundamental right of dignified life.
• They also claimed that without access to marriage, queer couples are denied from legal protection and rights such as inheritance, tax benefits, adoption, spousal medicinal decision making and health insurance etc. This causes diverse disadvantages and creates hardships.
• They contested that government has failed to provide compelling reasons for denying same sex couples for right to marry. There are no proper evidences which show that marriage between queer couples harms public order, morality or any other state interests. As many other countries in the world legalized queer couple marriages and put them into forces which  didn’t affect their countries development but made such countries emotionally free  countries.
• Under article 32 of the Indian constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered to enforce fundamental rights and there is no need to wait for legislative reforms, when a constitutional violation is clear and ongoing.

RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS

• The respondent argued that right to marry is not explicitly fundamental right under the Indian constitution so, the demand to legalize queer couple marriage under existing statutes exceeds the constitutional framework and fall within legislative domain.
• The decision about creating or expanding laws related to marriage of LGBTQ+ community must be made by parliament through legislation and not by courts interpretation. • Recognition of queer couple marriages would lead to significant changes in family and personal laws such as adoption, inheritance, succession, maintenance and divorce. • It is long process for judiciary to make new interpretation for the existing laws regarding same-sex marriages.
• It was contended that the language of the Special Marriage Act & Foreign Marriage Act is clearly gender specific and to change such language into gender neutral way would require extensive modification which is beyond the scope of judicial interpretation.
• The union pointed out that queer persons are already protected under the constitution following the Navtej Singh Johar and NALSA judgments. However the marriage is separate legal instruction with broader consequences and its extension requires legislative sanction  and the court was urged to refrain from stepping into the legislation field.
• The union noted that foreign judgments supporting same-sex marriage cannot override the Indian constitutional and statutory provisions, especially when Indian society has unique socio-legal context.

DECISION/HOLDING

• Right to marry is not a fundamental right under the constitution of India therefore, same-sex or queer couples don’t have any constitutional right to demand legal recognition of their marriage under the present existing laws in India.
• To make any modifications in the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act, legislative action is required rather than interpretation by judiciary as it involves to rewrite these Acts in gender-neutral language.
• Judicial recognition of same-sex marriage would require major changes across multiple laws including adoption, succession, maintenance, divorce and inheritance. The court held that such changes must come from Parliament not judiciary, by respecting the principle of  separation of powers.
• However, court unanimously recognized that queer persons have the right to enter into civil unions or partnerships and also emphasized that the state must ensure protection of these rights through policies and legal frameworks.
• The court also affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws.
• The court directed the union government to constitute a high powered committee to examine the rights and entitlements of queer couples and to consider providing legal recognition for civil unions without redefining marriage.

REASONING

• The Court noted that marriage is not just a private choice, but a legal and social institution that has developed over time through customs, laws, and policies.
• The majority judges clarified that equality before the law (Article 14) does not mean every group gets the same legal structure unless the law is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. • They said that the Special Marriage Act was not discriminatory, as it treats all heterosexual couples equally and does not target queer persons directly.
• The Court stressed that constitutional interpretation must respect legislative intent, and judges cannot “rewrite” laws just because they feel a change is morally right. • The minority judges, however, said that constitutional morality requires expanding rights to queer people, and that the State has a duty to actively protect and include them in legal  frameworks.

ORDER

• The prayers for legal recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 were declined by a majority of the Constitution Bench (3:2).
• The Court held that there is no constitutional mandate to recognize same-sex marriages, and any such recognition must come through legislation by Parliament, not judicial interpretation.
• The Court did not strike down or amend any provisions of the Special Marriage Act or Foreign Marriage Act.
• However, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate opinion, declared Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 as unconstitutional, for violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. This part of the judgment has binding effect.
• The Court directed the Union Government to constitute a high-level committee to examine and recommend steps to ensure legal rights and social benefits for queer couples, including in matters like pensions, health, insurance, property, and legal guardianship.
• The petitions were thus partly allowed and partly dismissed, depending on the nature of relief sought.

SIGNIFICANCE/IMPACT

• The Court’s decision is a milestone in affirming foundational constitutional protections including the right to form unions, dignity, and non-discrimination-for LGBTQIA+ persons, while placing primary responsibility for marriage law reform on Parliament.
• The judgment clarifies the broad scope of civil rights and citizenship for LGBTQIA+ individuals and provides an administrative framework for the further realization of these rights.
• While falling short of legalizing marriage for same-sex and queer couples, the ruling is pivotal in the ongoing struggle for greater equality and recognition.