Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: Constitution Bench — 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJ, S.K. Kaul, S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli & P.S. Narasimha JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
Following Navtej Johar (2018) which decriminalised consensual same-sex conduct, multiple same-sex couples filed petitions before the Supreme Court seeking recognition of same-sex marriage — primarily under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (a secular statute governing civil marriages). They argued that the right to marry the person of one's choice is a fundamental right under Article 21, and that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violates Articles 14, 15, and 19. The Union of India opposed, arguing that marriage is a socio-legal institution historically defined as between a man and a woman and any change must come from Parliament.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Is there a fundamental right to marry under the Constitution — and does it include the right to same-sex marriage?
- 2Can the Special Marriage Act, 1954 be read to include same-sex couples — or does it only contemplate heterosexual marriage?
- 3Should the Court recognise same-sex marriage — or leave it to Parliament to legislate?
- 4Do same-sex couples have rights to adoption, inheritance, and other civil rights ancillary to marriage?
The Judgment
By a 3:2 majority, the Constitution Bench declined to recognise same-sex marriage as a fundamental right or to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples. The majority (Bhat, Kohli, and Narasimha JJ) held: (1) there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution — marriage is a statutory right, not a constitutional right; (2) the Special Marriage Act is a Parliamentary legislation that the Court cannot amend by judicial interpretation to include same-sex couples; (3) it is for Parliament and State legislatures to decide whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul dissented — holding that the right to marry is a fundamental right and that the State's failure to recognise same-sex unions violates constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. The Court unanimously directed the formation of a committee to examine ancillary rights of queer couples.
Key Principles Laid Down
NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY (MAJORITY): The majority held that the Indian Constitution does not contain an explicit or implied fundamental right to marry. Marriage is a statutory institution regulated by legislation — the Court cannot create a new constitutional right to marry by judicial interpretation.
SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT — COURT CANNOT AMEND LEGISLATION: The SMA uses terms like 'male' and 'female' — to read these as gender-neutral would be to substitute judicial interpretation for legislative will. Courts cannot redraft legislation, even in the service of constitutional values.
PARLIAMENT/LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: The question of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples involves complex socio-legal considerations — this is a matter for the democratically elected legislature, not the courts.
DISSENT — RIGHT TO MARRY IS FUNDAMENTAL (CHANDRACHUD CJ AND KAUL J): The dissent held that the right to form a union with a person of one's choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 — and the State's refusal to recognise same-sex unions violates the rights to equality (Articles 14, 15) and dignity (Article 21). The dissenters would have directed the State to recognise civil unions even if not granting the word 'marriage'.
UNANIMOUS — ANCILLARY RIGHTS COMMITTEE: All five judges agreed that queer couples face genuine difficulties in exercising rights (joint adoption, inheritance, medical decisions, social security) and directed the Union to constitute a committee to examine and address these rights without necessarily calling them marriage rights.
NAVTEJ JOHAR EXTENDED IN CIVIL RIGHTS CONTEXT — BUT LIMITS NOTED: While Navtej Johar decriminalised same-sex conduct, Supriyo makes clear that decriminalisation does not automatically translate into affirmative civil rights like marriage. The constitutional arc continues.
Impact on Indian Law
Supriyo (2023) is the most recent major LGBTQ+ rights judgment of the Supreme Court. Its refusal to recognise same-sex marriage disappointed the petitioners but the 3:2 majority means the question remains open for future reconsideration. The judgment establishes that decriminalisation (Navtej Johar) is distinct from civil rights recognition (marriage, adoption). The committee directed by the Court to examine ancillary rights continues work. Internationally, India joins most South Asian countries in not recognising same-sex marriage — contrasting with the growing number of countries globally that do. The dissent by the Chief Justice suggests the question will likely be revisited.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is same-sex marriage legal in India after Supriyo (2023)?
No. The Supreme Court in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) declined, by a 3:2 majority, to recognise same-sex marriage or read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples. The majority held marriage is a statutory institution and it is for Parliament to decide whether to extend it to same-sex couples. The 3:2 split, the strong dissent by the Chief Justice, and the ongoing committee on ancillary rights mean the legal landscape continues to evolve.
What did the Supreme Court direct in Supriyo regarding rights of same-sex couples?
All five judges agreed that queer couples face genuine difficulties with ancillary rights — joint adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, social security benefits. The Court unanimously directed the Union of India to form a committee to examine these rights and recommend measures to address the difficulties faced by same-sex couples, even without formal marriage recognition.