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

Case Title and Citation

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

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date: October 17, 2023

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022

Introduction

Parties Involved

• Petitioners: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, a same-sex couple, along with other LGBTQ+ individuals, activists, and organizations.
• Respondent: Union of India, represented by the central government.

Nature of the Case

This lawsuit involving constitutional laws pertaining to LGBTQ+ people’s basic liberties argues that their rights under the Indian Constitution were infringed by the lack of such recognition, the petitioners sought legal acceptance of same-sex unions under Indian law.

Procedural History

• Drawing on Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the case was brought as a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India.
• Originally approaching the Court in 2022, the petitioners sought recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which controls civil weddings in India.
• The issue was submitted to a five-judge Constitutional Bench to consider whether same-sex weddings ought to be accepted in India.
• Following protracted hearings, October 17, 2023 was the date on which the judgement was delivered.

Facts of the Case

Key Facts

• The petitioners, Supriyo and Abhay, are a same-sex couple seeking legal recognition of their marriage.
• A number of additional LGBTQ+ individuals became involved in the case, highlighting that the absence of legal recognition denied them essential marital rights, including inheritance, tax benefits, medical decision-making, and adoption rights.
• The petitioners contended that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage laws infringed upon their rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), freedom of expression (Article 19), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).
• The government asserted that marriage is defined as a heterosexual institution under Indian law and contended that any changes in this area should be initiated by the legislature rather than the judiciary.

Context

• The case was examined within the broader framework of LGBTQ+ rights in India, subsequent to the significant ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), in which the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality by annulling Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Despite the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships, the legal framework in India continues to lack recognition of same-sex marriages, leading to the current litigation.

Legal Issues

Primary Issue

The issue at hand is whether the lack of recognition for same-sex marriages infringes upon the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals as outlined in the Indian Constitution.

Sub-Issues

• Is it possible to interpret the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to encompass same-sex marriages?
• The constitutionality of denying marital benefits, including inheritance, adoption, and taxation advantages, is under examination.
• The question arises regarding the extent of the Supreme Court’s authority to legislate on marriage laws, or whether these issues ought to be delegated to Parliament.
• The question of whether the government should implement civil unions as an alternative to marriage for same-sex couples is under consideration.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments

• The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage infringes upon their rights as guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
• The definition of marriage has undergone significant transformation throughout history, and it is essential to extend legal recognition to LGBTQ+ individuals.
• The judicial system has played a significant role in the expansion of rights throughout history, exemplified by the Navtej Johar case, and it is imperative that this trend continues in the pursuit of marriage equality.
• International Precedents: Numerous democratic nations acknowledge same-sex marriages, and India ought to align with global developments.
• The interpretation of the Special Marriage Act should be approached in a gender-neutral manner, enabling same-sex couples to enter into marriage.

Defendant’s Arguments (Union of India)

• The government contended that marriage is a matter for legislative authority, asserting that it is within Parliament’s jurisdiction and that judicial interference is unwarranted.
• The definition of heteronormativity in the context of Indian law indicates that marriage is structured around a heterosexual framework, and any modifications to this framework necessitate extensive legal reforms.
• Social and Cultural Considerations: Acknowledging same-sex marriages may lead to significant social and cultural ramifications, necessitating extensive public and legislative discourse.
• The government recognised the discrimination experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals and proposed the establishment of a committee to examine rights such as next-of-kin recognition, inheritance, and financial rights, while not conferring marital status.

Court’s Analysis

Legal Reasoning

• The Court recognised the discrimination experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals and concurred that they are entitled to legal protections.
• It was determined that marriage does not constitute a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and that its acknowledgement necessitates legislative intervention.
• The Court dismissed the assertion that the Special Marriage Act could be understood in a gender-neutral manner, emphasising that any modifications must originate from Parliament.
• The ruling highlighted that the right to marry is not explicitly protected by the Constitution, in contrast to certain nations where judicial bodies have stepped in to acknowledge same-sex marriages.

Relevant Law

• Article 14 (Right to Equality)
• Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)
• Article 19 (Freedom of Expression)
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
• Special Marriage Act, 1954

 Interpretation

• The Court affirmed the government’s position that marriage laws should not be altered via judicial intervention and must instead undergo legislative reform.
• The Court acknowledged the necessity for legal safeguards and instructed the government to establish a high-level committee to investigate rights for same-sex couples.

Decision

Ruling

• The Supreme Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage while acknowledging the necessity for legal rights for LGBTQ+ couples.
• The Court delegated the matter to Parliament, indicating that the reform of marriage law falls within the purview of legislative responsibilities.

Outcome

• In India, same-sex couples are not granted the legal right to marry.
• Nevertheless, the government has been instructed to evaluate the possibility of granting legal rights to LGBTQ+ couples.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

• Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul acknowledged the importance of LGBTQ+ rights while asserting that any amendments to marriage laws should be enacted by Parliament.
• Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Hima Kohli firmly dismissed the petitioners’ assertion that marriage ought to be acknowledged as a fundamental right.

Significance

Impact on Law

• The ruling affirmed Parliament’s jurisdiction regarding marriage legislation while simultaneously paving the way for the legal acknowledgement of LGBTQ+ rights via policy changes.

Precedent

• This case elucidated the constraints of judicial involvement in marriage legislation and established a benchmark for forthcoming LGBTQ+ rights cases.

Subsequent Developments

• The government has established a committee to examine legal protections for same-sex couples; however, no definitive reforms have been enacted at this time.

Conclusion

Summary

• The Supreme Court declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, thereby delegating the matter to Parliament for further consideration.
• The Court recognised the discrimination experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals and instructed the government to investigate alternative legal protections.

Personal Analysis

The Supreme Court’s decision in Supriyo v. Union of India offers LGBTQ+ rights in India both a legal loss and a sociopolitical chance. Although the ruling does not legalise same-sex marriage, it does draw major attention to the legal void around LGBTQ+ partnerships and exposes the systematic prejudice same-sex couples experience in areas of inheritance, taxes, medical decisions, and adoption.

A main lesson from the decision is the Supreme Court’s judicial restraint. The Court underlined the need for Parliament to create marriage legislation, therefore supporting the separation of powers theory. Although this strategy conforms with constitutional values, given the political and societal sensitivities around LGBTQ+ rights, it begs questions regarding whether legislative action on the topic will take place not too far off. The ruling has directly placed the duty on the government and legislators, hence continued development will probably rely on public advocacy, political will, and legal activity.

The Court’s acknowledging of LGBTQ+ rights outside of marriage is another crucial component of the ruling. The verdict recognised the need for legal safeguards for same-sex couples even if it did not award full marital recognition, therefore motivating the government to create a high-powered committee to investigate rights including inheritance, financial perks, and healthcare decision-making. Though it falls short of complete marital equality, its acknowledgement sets the groundwork for small legislative changes.

Viewed more broadly, the case illustrates India’s changing position on LGBTQ+ rights. The fact that such a case was addressed at the highest court level indicates rising legal debate on LGBTQ+ problems and society acceptance. This case marks an advancement in the acceptance of gay identities in India’s legal and social framework, compared to ten years before, when simply talking about LGBTQ+ rights was divisive.

However, the decision also highlights the ingrained social and cultural restrictions currently in place. Celebrating the decision as a safeguard of “traditional Indian values,” several hardline organisations highlighted the difficulties LGBTQ+ campaigners now face. This case reminds us, then, that social transformation and political participation are just as vital for guaranteeing real equality and dignity for LGBTQ+ people in India as legal challenges by themselves are inadequate.

The case has positioned itself going forward for more litigation and policy debates. Advocates of LGBTQ+ rights might seek several legal paths, including support of civil unions or a distinct legal system for same-sex couples. Furthermore, constant public debate and political involvement will be crucial in pushing legislators to really handle LGBTQ+ concerns. India’s fight for marriage equality is far from finished, and even if the Supreme Court’s ruling might not be the breakthrough many had hoped for, it surely fuels ongoing legal and social campaigning.