Supriyo v. Union of India

Author: Sanya Jain, Uttar Pradesh State Institute of Forensic Sciences.

The landmark case of Supriyo v. Union of India is an important turning point in the fight for LGBTQIA+ rights in India. This Supreme Court judgment addressed the contentious question of whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized in India. Although the court recognized the dignity and status of gays and lesbians, the court ended up declining to grant them the right to marry, thus postponing consideration to the legislature.

Analysis is based on detailed examination as well as judgments of facts, problems, and implications; it evaluates the court's reasoning in the broader context of India's constitutional and human rights framework.

Parties Involved:

Petitioners: Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, besides other same-sex couples who contested the constitutionality of Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). They contended that the restriction in the law on same-sex couples' marriage rights did not permit fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Relevant Facts:

The petitioners commented on the legal and social discrimination against queer people caused by the absence of legal recognition for homosexual couples getting married. To marry would be necessary for same-sex couples to gain access to rights and benefits which are presently only accessible to heterosexual couples, such as inheritance, adoption, ownership and others. 

Procedural History: 

These petitions were filed in different High Courts of India, which initiated the proceedings. In November 2022, these petitions were grouped and referred to the Supreme Court. In March 2023, a three-judge bench referred the case to a five-judge Constitution Bench, which reserved its judgment after a series of high-level hearings in May 2023. The final decision was delivered on October 17, 2023.

The Supreme Court was required to resolve the following major legal issues:

1. Fundamental Right to Marry: Is the exclusion of homosexual couples under the Special Marriage Act from Article 21 right to marry the same as that of heterosexual couples?

2. Is prohibiting marriage as restricted to heterosexual couples an infringement of Articles 14 and 15, the right to equality and prohibition on discrimination?

3. Judicial Overreach: Can courts apply the SMA law as was intended to those in same-sex couples, or is that a question better left to the law-making branch?

"The response poignantly brings the issues at the very heart of the case to the fore," the Court held. "This includes constitutional and broader sociocultural tensions linked to the ever-developing law-interaction scope for the judiciary."

Holding:

The court dismissed recognition of cases similar to same-sex marriage under the legislation with the argument that such recognition and privilege are considered through the legislation. But it recognised the rights of same sex people to have intimate relationships and instructed the authorities to take action when there is indirect discrimination.

Rationale:

In conclusion, the court also argued that the enlargement of the definition of marriage under SMA constitutes judicial legislation, something that goes beyond the scope of its institutional function. Acknowledging the changing social perceptions of relationships,1 the Court stressed the principle of separation of powers, and the scope of legislative debate around marriage equality.

Majority Opinion:

Justice Bhat and the majority recognized the dignity and autonomy of queer individuals but maintained that the SMA’s framework was explicitly designed for heterosexual marriages. They claimed that changing this metaphysics would be in conflict with, or necessitate, both changing the legislative design, and structural changes beyond the scope of the court's own purview.

The majority drew from precedents such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality, and resorted to reference to the constitution bench that, in the Puttaswamy (2017) case, held that the right to privacy exists, but did not extend these rights to marriage instead kept these limited to fundamental relationships.

Concurring Opinions:

But Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud took a wider jurisdiction by recognizing the holocaust of indirect discrimination that same-sex couples suffered in their relationship, particularly difficulties in obtaining benefits like adoption, pension, or welfare from the other party. On the other hand, he agreed with the coalition in letting the process of marriage equality be handled by the legislature.

Statutes and Precedents:

The decision mainly drew upon the Special Marriage Act and selectively turned to international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The inconsistent use of international standards by the court also elicited criticism, as follows.

Legal Precedent:

The decision sustains the dignity and the self-determination of gay people, however does not bring legal recognition of same-sex marriages. By delaying the development of this issue to the legislature the court thereby adopted a conservative precedent that does not stray from its constitutional role.

Social and Political Impact:

The decision generated heated public and scholarly discussion regarding the role of the courts for achieving social transformation. It also underscores the contestation between judicial activism and the legislative attribute in issues concerning some fundamental rights.

The fact that the socio-legal consequences of same-sex marriage are being reviewed by the creation of a high-powered committee indicates an opportunity for inclusive policy change. Legislation, for instance, was perhaps made because of the belief that a new law may fall short of the radical social change that homosexuals aspire to. Stating that there might be immediate judicial cure, in case of a stalemate in the legislature, is only to confirm ambiguity.

Critical Analysis:

The rationale provides a rather cautious conservative view that sides a little more with institutional supremacy than actual equalisation; by failing to recognise these rights to married couples, the court dilutes its otherwise progressive posture in the matter of Navtej Singh Johar when it comes to conferring such rights upon the lgbt community.

Strengths:

1. Protection of Queer Rights: Recognition of such dignity and autonomy of the queer community is a step in India.

2. Indirect Discrimination: By recognizing indirect discrimination in issues like pensions or adoption, the court provides the basis for incremental legal reform.

Weaknesses:

1. Judicial Conservatism: It is striking that the court's refusal to reinterpret the SMA expansively is rather the opposite of the court's proactive stance in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) that it incorporated international treaties into domestic law.

2. Discrepancy in the Usage of Global Standards: Selective reference to the provisions of the UDHR and ICCPR undermine the integrity of the judgment and India's commitment to universality in human rights.

   
   

It could also have taken a wider view of the SMA for coming to a conclusion, which would reflect the equality and non-discrimination principles provided in the Constitution. Alternatively, it could have imposed binding legislation directions with a view to give weight to the need to take action on marriage equality.

The decision Supriyo v. Union of India, in the Indian Supreme Court, highlights the principled, cautious posture of the judiciary between on one hand the side of constitutionality and on the other hand the side of social conservatism. By affirming the dignity and freedom of queer individuals the court made some progress in the field of rights for LGBTQIA+. But for its rejection of extending these fundamental civil rights to marriage, a major lacuna in the legal system in India still remains.

With this decision, it is placed on the legislature as a whole to enact broad statutory reforms, thereby bringing it into sync with constitutional values of equality and dignity. A coordinated work among the judiciary, legislature and civil society is a requisite factor to ensure the fulfillment of the rights that disadvantaged social groups may claim.

In the continuing march towards inclusive India, the case of Supriyo stands at a point of both advance and also deep insight into how much needs to be overcome, to reach the realisation of true equality.