Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348; 2023 INSC 920

Citation
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348; 2023 INSC 920
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
17 October 2023
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud C.J.; S.K. Kaul; S. Ravindra Bhat; Hima Kohli; P.S. Narasimha

Facts

  • Several queer couples and LGBTQ+ persons filed petitions seeking legal recognition of their relationships.
  • They challenged the exclusion of same-sex couples from the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and related legal frameworks.
  • The petitioners argued that although Navtej Singh Johar had decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships, queer couples continued to be denied the legal benefits attached to marriage.
  • These benefits included:
  • succession;
  • adoption;
  • pensions;
  • insurance;
  • medical decision-making;
  • taxation; and
  • recognition as next of kin.
  • The petitioners requested the Court to interpret terms such as “husband,” “wife,” “male” and “female” in a gender-neutral manner.
  • Some petitioners alternatively sought legal recognition of civil unions.
  • The Union argued that marriage was a statutory and social institution and that changing its legal structure required detailed legislative action.
  • A five-judge Constitution Bench delivered four opinions.

Issue

  • Whether the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to marry.
  • Whether the Special Marriage Act could be interpreted to include same-sex couples.
  • Whether queer couples possess a fundamental right to a legally recognised civil union.
  • Whether unmarried queer couples were entitled to joint adoption.
  • What constitutional protections exist for queer relationships even without marriage recognition.

Rule

  • Queer persons possess equal rights to:
  • dignity;
  • privacy;
  • autonomy;
  • cohabitation;
  • intimate association; and
  • protection from violence and discrimination.
  • There is no free-standing fundamental right to have every intimate relationship legally recognised as marriage.
  • Marriage acquires legal consequences primarily through legislation.
  • Courts may interpret statutes but cannot reconstruct an entire legislative scheme where doing so requires numerous policy choices.
  • Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships may marry under existing marriage laws where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
  • The State and police must protect queer adults from coercion, violence and interference with their relationships.

Application

  • All judges accepted that queer relationships were constitutionally legitimate and entitled to dignity.
  • The Court rejected arguments suggesting that homosexuality or queer relationships were foreign to Indian society.
  • However, the Special Marriage Act was built around a gendered structure involving:
  • husband and wife;
  • succession rules;
  • prohibited relationships;
  • divorce;
  • maintenance; and
  • personal-law consequences.
  • Replacing selected words would not be sufficient.
  • A gender-neutral interpretation would require the Court to make interconnected legislative choices affecting several statutes.
  • The judges agreed that this task principally belonged to Parliament.
  • Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul would have recognised a constitutional right of queer couples to enter a legally acknowledged union distinct from marriage.
  • They also favoured stronger recognition of adoption rights.
  • Justices Bhat, Kohli and Narasimha disagreed that courts could require the State to create such a legal institution.
  • The majority held that recognition of civil unions and the legal benefits attached to them required legislation.
  • The majority also declined to invalidate the adoption rules that prevented an unmarried same-sex couple from jointly adopting.
  • The Court nevertheless reaffirmed that queer persons may:
  • choose partners;
  • live together;
  • form households; and
  • create families in a social and personal sense.
  • Police and families cannot force queer adults to separate or return to their natal homes.
  • The Court recorded the Union Government’s statement that a committee would examine administrative and social benefits available to queer couples.

Conclusion

  • The Court unanimously declined to interpret the Special Marriage Act as authorising same-sex marriage.
  • It held that there was no judicially enforceable fundamental right to marry.
  • By a 3:2 majority, the Court also declined to create a legally recognised civil-union framework or invalidate the existing joint-adoption restriction.
  • Queer persons retained fundamental rights to dignity, choice, cohabitation and protection from discrimination or violence.