SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY vs UNION OF INDIA, 2023
Case Title and Citation
SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (with connected matters) Citation: 2023 INSC 920 Date of Judgment: October 17, 2023
Factual Background
The petitions were filed by members of the LGBTQIA+ community (“queer persons”) challenging the current legal framework. The petitioners invoked the equality code of the Constitution to seek legal recognition of their relationships in the form of marriage. They contended that the Special Marriage Act (SMA), by implicitly excluding queer persons, discriminates against them on the basis of sexual orientation and denies them rights under social welfare legislations. The petitions also challenged the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA) and Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations 2022. The Union of India argued that marriage is historically conceived as a union between heterosexual persons across all laws and that the definition of marriage is not a constitutional matter but a subject for the legislature.
Issue(s)
- Whether the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to marry for all persons, including those in non-heterosexual relationships.
- Whether the Special Marriage Act (SMA) and the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA) are unconstitutional or require interpretation (reading down) to include the solemnization and registration of marriages between non-heterosexual persons.
- Whether Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations (mandating a two-year stable marital relationship for couples adopting) violates the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) and/or Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by discriminating against queer couples and unmarried heterosexual couples.
- Whether transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing law.
Decision of the Supreme Court
- The Court unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution.
- The Court did not strike down the SMA or the FMA, nor did it read words into these statutes to allow for same-sex marriage, citing institutional limitations.
- The Court recognized the right of queer persons to a union or abiding cohabitational relationship protected under the Constitution.
- The Court unanimously held that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws.
- The Court, by majority, found Regulation 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations to be ultra vires the JJ Act and violative of Articles 14 and 15, and directed that the term “marital” be excluded (read down).
- The Court directed the Union Government to establish a High-Powered Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary to study and determine the benefits and entitlements available to queer couples in a union.
Reason for the decision
- Right to Marry and Separation of Powers: The Constitution does not expressly recognize the fundamental right to marry. Marriage is a social institution regulated by the State (Parliament and State legislatures). The extensive rewriting of the SMA and allied laws (like succession laws) necessary to recognize same-sex marriage would amount to judicial legislation, which is beyond the Court’s institutional capacity and would violate the principle of separation of powers.
- Right to Union and Non-Discrimination: Although the right to marry is not fundamental, the freedom of all persons (including queer persons) to enter into a union is protected under Part III of the Constitution (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25). The resulting indirect discrimination faced by queer couples due to their non-inclusion in laws that confer earned benefits, privileges, and entitlements constitutes discrimination prohibited by Article 15.
- Transgender Rights: Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships (those identifying as male or female marrying a person of the opposite sex/gender) have the right to marry under existing laws (including personal laws and SMA) because the gendered terms used in these statutes cannot be interpreted to govern only cisgender persons.
- Adoption Regulations: Regulation 5(3) was held illegal because it exceeded the scope of the parent act (JJ Act) and lacked a rational nexus with the objective of protecting the child’s best interest (Article 14 violation). It was also discriminatory (Article 15 violation) because it disproportionately affected queer couples who cannot legally marry to meet the required stability criteria, forcing them to adopt only as individuals.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the fundamental rights of queer persons to form abiding unions and directed the government to take steps to ensure they are not discriminated against and receive necessary benefits. However, the Court deferred the legal recognition of same-sex marriage to the domain of the legislature, acknowledging that the complexities of changing matrimonial statutes required a polycentric solution beyond the scope of judicial remedy. The Court also explicitly sanctioned the joint adoption rights of unmarried couples, including queer couples, by invalidating the “marital” requirement in the Adoption Regulations.
Case Materials:
Day 1 of Arguments: 18 April 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 2 of Arguments: 19 April 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 3 of Arguments: 20 April 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 4 of Arguments: 25 April 2023 (Video Recording)
Day 5 of Arguments: 26 April 2023 (Video Recording)
Day 6 of Arguments: 27 April 2023 (Video Recording)
Day 7 of Arguments: 03 May 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 8 of Arguments: 09 May 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 9 of Arguments: 10 May 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 10 of Arguments: 11 May 2023 (Video Recording)
