Supriyo v. Union of India
“The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India”
TL;DR
A 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution and declined to legally recognize same-sex marriages. However, the Court recognized queer couples' right to cohabit, directed the government to form a committee to address their legal entitlements, and affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws.
The Bottom Line
While same-sex marriage was not legally recognized, the Supreme Court acknowledged LGBTQ+ rights to cohabit without discrimination, directed the government to address their legal entitlements, and confirmed transgender persons' marriage rights in heterosexual relationships.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Petition Filed
Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang filed writ petition seeking recognition of same-sex marriage
Petition Filed
Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang filed writ petition seeking recognition of same-sex marriage
First Hearing
Initial hearing before the Supreme Court
First Hearing
Initial hearing before the Supreme Court
Petitions Transferred
9 related petitions from Delhi and Kerala High Courts transferred to Supreme Court
Petitions Transferred
9 related petitions from Delhi and Kerala High Courts transferred to Supreme Court
Referred to Constitution Bench
Case referred to 5-judge Constitution Bench due to constitutional importance
Referred to Constitution Bench
Case referred to 5-judge Constitution Bench due to constitutional importance
Constitution Bench Hearings Begin
Extensive hearings began before the 5-judge bench
Constitution Bench Hearings Begin
Extensive hearings began before the 5-judge bench
Judgment Reserved
After 10 days of arguments, judgment was reserved
Judgment Reserved
After 10 days of arguments, judgment was reserved
Judgment Delivered
Constitution Bench delivered judgment declining to recognize same-sex marriage
Judgment Delivered
Constitution Bench delivered judgment declining to recognize same-sex marriage
Review Petition Dismissed
Supreme Court dismissed the review petition against the judgment
Review Petition Dismissed
Supreme Court dismissed the review petition against the judgment
The Story
In November 2022, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, a same-sex couple, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition of their marriage. They challenged the constitutionality of Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which restricts marriage to unions between a "male" and "female."
Their petition was one of 20 connected cases brought by 52 petitioners, representing same-sex couples, LGBTQ+ activists, and organizations seeking marriage equality in India. The petitioners argued that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage laws violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (life and personal liberty).
The case gained significance as a follow-up to the landmark Navtej Singh Johar judgment (2018) that decriminalized homosexuality by reading down Section 377 of the IPC. Petitioners argued that having decriminalized same-sex relationships, the logical next step was to provide legal recognition through marriage.
On March 13, 2023, recognizing the constitutional importance of the issues, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. The Bench conducted extensive hearings over 10 days from April 18 to May 11, 2023, hearing arguments from petitioners, the Union Government, and various intervenors including religious bodies.
The Union Government opposed the petitions, arguing that marriage is a statutory right governed by personal laws and that any change to its definition must come through Parliament, not judicial interpretation. Various religious groups also intervened, arguing that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Discrimination under Article 15
Exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage amounts to discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, violating Article 15 of the Constitution.
Extension of Navtej Johar principles
Having decriminalized homosexuality, the logical extension is to provide legal recognition to same-sex relationships through marriage.
Denial of rights and benefits
Same-sex couples are denied numerous legal rights including inheritance, adoption, medical decision-making, tax benefits, and succession rights available to married heterosexual couples.
Right to dignity under Article 21
The right to marry the person of one's choice is integral to human dignity and personal liberty protected under Article 21.
Special Marriage Act is secular
The Special Marriage Act is a secular law that can be interpreted to include same-sex couples without affecting religious personal laws.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Marriage is a statutory right
Marriage in India is governed by statutory and personal laws, not the Constitution. There is no fundamental right to marry.
Legislative domain
Any change to the definition of marriage must come through Parliament after democratic deliberation, not through judicial interpretation.
Traditional institution
Marriage has historically and across cultures been understood as a union between a man and a woman, rooted in biological complementarity.
Cascading effects
Recognizing same-sex marriage would have cascading effects on adoption, surrogacy, succession, and other personal laws requiring comprehensive legislative consideration.
Navtej Johar was limited
The Navtej Singh Johar judgment only decriminalized homosexuality; it did not create any positive right to marriage for same-sex couples.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Constitution Bench delivered four separate opinions across 366 pages. While all five judges unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to recognize same-sex marriages under existing laws, there were significant differences on other issues. CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul in the minority supported civil unions and joint adoption rights for queer couples, while the majority of three judges held that such matters require legislative action.
The Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry.
Unanimous holding that marriage is not a constitutional fundamental right, but a statutory right governed by legislation.
Judicial legislation is not permissible in law. When there are various options open for a legislative change and policy considerations abound, it is best left for Parliament to engage in democratic decision-making.
Establishes the boundary between judicial interpretation and legislative function in social policy.
Queer couples are entitled to all benefits that flow to unmarried couples living together.
Recognizes legal protections for LGBTQ+ couples even without formal marriage recognition.
A transgender person in a heterosexual relationship has the right to marry under existing laws.
Affirms marriage rights for transgender individuals in heterosexual relationships.
The State shall ensure that the choice exercised by queer and LGBTQ couples to cohabit is not interfered with and they do not face any threat of violence or coercion.
Places positive obligation on the State to protect LGBTQ+ couples from violence and discrimination.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
While the primary relief of marriage recognition was denied, the Court directed the government to address practical difficulties faced by queer couples through administrative measures and policy changes.
Directions Issued
- Union Government to constitute a high-powered committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary to examine legal entitlements of queer couples
- Committee to include domain experts and members of the queer community
- Committee to address issues including ration card benefits, joint bank accounts, succession rights, pension benefits, and hospital visitation rights
- State to ensure queer couples are not subjected to violence or coercion for choosing to cohabit
- Queer couples not to be subjected to involuntary medical or surgical treatment
- Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws
- Directions in NALSA judgment to continue to apply to transgender persons
Key Legal Principles Established
There is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution.
The right to choose a partner is protected under Article 21, but this does not extend to a right to have that relationship legally recognized as marriage.
Courts cannot judicially rewrite statutes to include same-sex marriages - such changes must come from Parliament.
Queer couples have the right to cohabit without interference and are entitled to protection from violence.
Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws.
The State has a positive obligation to ensure LGBTQ+ individuals are not subjected to involuntary medical treatment.
Legal recognition of relationships and marriage equality require legislative action, not judicial interpretation.
Policy matters with cascading effects across multiple laws are best addressed through democratic legislative process.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Same-sex marriages are NOT legally recognized in India as of this judgment.
- LGBTQ+ couples have the right to live together without interference from the State or private parties.
- If you face violence or coercion for being in a same-sex relationship, the State must protect you.
- Transgender persons who identify as male or female can marry persons of the opposite gender under existing laws.
- You cannot be forced to undergo medical or surgical treatment because of your sexual orientation or gender identity.
- The government is supposed to form a committee to address practical issues like joint bank accounts and hospital visitation for queer couples.
- Same-sex couples can access mental healthcare services.
- Single LGBTQ+ individuals can adopt children, but unmarried same-sex couples cannot adopt jointly.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: Petitioners argued exclusion from marriage violates equality; Court held legislative classification is permissible.
Article 15
Constitution of India
“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”
Relevance: Minority held exclusion violates Article 15; majority held discrimination claims require legislative remedy.
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: Right to choose a partner protected, but does not extend to mandating legal recognition of marriage.
Statutory Provisions
Section 4
Special Marriage Act, 1954
“Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages including that male has completed 21 years and female has completed 18 years.”
Relevance: Primary statute challenged; Court declined to read it in gender-neutral manner.
Section 3
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
“Prohibition against discrimination on grounds of transgender status.”
Relevance: Read harmoniously with marriage laws to affirm transgender marriage rights in heterosexual relationships.
Regulation 5(3)
Central Adoption Resource Authority Regulations
“Prospective adoptive parents must be in a stable marital relationship for at least two years.”
Relevance: Upheld by majority 3-2; prevents joint adoption by unmarried same-sex couples.
Related Cases & Precedents
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
cited(2018) 10 SCC 1
Decriminalized homosexuality by reading down Section 377 IPC. Recognized LGBTQ+ rights to dignity and privacy but did not address marriage.
NALSA v. Union of India
cited(2014) 5 SCC 438
Recognized transgender persons as "third gender" and affirmed their fundamental rights including right to self-identification.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
cited(2017) 10 SCC 1
Recognized right to privacy as fundamental right, including sexual orientation. Foundation for LGBTQ+ rights jurisprudence.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.
cited(2018) 16 SCC 368
Upheld right to choose life partner as part of personal liberty under Article 21.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India
cited(2018) 7 SCC 192
Protected inter-caste couples from honor violence; recognized freedom to choose marriage partner.
Obergefell v. Hodges
distinguished576 U.S. 644 (2015)
US Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as constitutional right; Indian Court distinguished based on different constitutional frameworks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.