Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s judgement in Supriyo v. Union of India is a landmark ruling with significant implications for constitutional interpretation, individual rights, and legislative limitations. This case focused on the constitutionality of a particular legal provision, addressing fundamental rights and the balance between state powers and personal liberties.

Background of the Case

The case of Supriyo v. Union of India emerged out of the petitioner Supriyo Chakraborty's challenge to the application of certain provisions of Indian law that he argued were in violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, the case focused on the legal recognition of same-sex marriages under Indian law, testing the boundaries of constitutional freedoms in the context of the right to equality (Article 14), the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 15).

The petition arose in the aftermath of the 2018 Supreme Court judgement in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, where the Court had decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. While that judgement was a monumental step for LGBTQ+ rights, it left open the question of legal recognition for same-sex marriages, prompting this case.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, a same-sex couple, had been in a committed relationship for several years. They sought legal recognition of their union through marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), a statute allowing civil marriages for individuals of any religion. The couple argued that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the purview of the SMA was discriminatory, violated their dignity, and was unconstitutional.

Their petition was filed alongside others from same-sex couples across India, who similarly sought recognition of their marital rights. The petitioners contended that their inability to marry not only denied them legal rights such as inheritance, adoption, and social benefits but also marginalized them as second-class citizens.

The Union of India opposed the petition, arguing that the institution of marriage in India, as traditionally understood, is confined to heterosexual unions. The government also raised concerns that any recognition of same-sex marriage would have far-reaching consequences for the societal and religious fabric of the nation.

Legal Issues

Several pivotal legal issues were raised before the Court:

1. Whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from the Special Marriage Act, 1954 violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
2. Whether the refusal to recognize same-sex marriages constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, thereby violating Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.
3. Whether the right to marry is a fundamental right implicit within the ambit of the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
4. Whether societal and religious norms can justify the denial of legal recognition for same-sex marriages under a secular law such as the Special Marriage Act.

The Impugned Section: Special Marriage Act, 1954

The primary legal provision under challenge was the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The petitioners contended that the definition of "marriage" under this Act was implicitly biased toward heterosexual couples and excluded same-sex couples. The Act’s failure to recognize the unions of same-sex couples effectively denied them the ability to register their marriages and access a host of legal benefits.

Judgement

In a detailed and nuanced judgement, the Supreme Court addressed both constitutional principles and societal concerns. The Court delivered a split verdict, highlighting the complexity of the issues at hand:

1. Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: The majority of the judges opined that while equality and non-discrimination were foundational to the Indian Constitution, the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act involved delicate questions of societal norms, religion, and legislative domain. The Court acknowledged the importance of the rights of same-sex couples but refrained from issuing a mandate recognizing same-sex marriage under the SMA. Instead, the Court left this issue to the wisdom of the legislature, suggesting that Parliament was the appropriate body to decide on such matters.
2. Constitutional Protections: The Court, however, unanimously upheld the rights of same-sex couples to dignity, privacy, and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 21. The judgement affirmed that LGBTQ+ individuals have the right to form unions, live together, and be protected from discrimination, while emphasizing that their relationships deserve respect and legal protection in various domains, including inheritance, adoption, and civil rights.
3. Separation of Powers: The Court highlighted the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that while it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to safeguard constitutional rights, issues related to marriage law reform should be addressed by Parliament. The Court invited the legislature to take into consideration the rights of same-sex couples and enact appropriate legal reforms.
4. Impact on Personal Laws: The judgement also considered the implications of recognizing same-sex marriages on personal laws, noting that marriage in India is deeply interwoven with religious customs and practices. The Court’s reluctance to intervene stemmed partly from the concern that altering marriage laws under the SMA could lead to conflicts within religious communities.

Conclusion

While the judgement in Supriyo v. Union of India did not provide immediate relief to same-sex couples seeking to marry, it marked a significant step forward in the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights in India. By affirming the rights to dignity, privacy, and non-discrimination, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, are entitled to the same constitutional protections.

The judgment also underscored the need for legislative action, urging Parliament to take up the issue of same-sex marriage and provide a legal framework that ensures equal rights for all citizens. This decision is likely to serve as a catalyst for future debates on marriage equality and civil rights for LGBTQ+ individuals in India. Although the case did not result in a direct legal mandate for same-sex marriages, its significance lies in the constitutional recognition of the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, potentially paving the way for future reforms.

Key Takeaways

1. The Supreme Court left the recognition of same-sex marriages to Parliament, respecting the separation of powers.
2. The judgement upheld the constitutional rights to equality, privacy, and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals.
3. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, while not amended by this judgement, was identified as a key area for potential legislative reform.

This judgement reiterates that while the judiciary can safeguard fundamental rights, significant societal changes such as marriage reforms require legislative intervention to ensure a broader consensus.
 

You can also read the Blogs by clicking [Blogs section]
For more information, visit [ALEC Enquiry].