CASE NAME: Supriyo vs UOI

COURT: Supreme Court of India

DATE OF DECISION: 17^th October 2023

CORAM: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice P.S. Narasimha

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India was deeply intertwined with societal issues related to the rights and recognition of sexual and gender minority individuals in India. The case was a significant legal challenge to the existing norms and brought to the forefront the struggle for equality and dignity by the LGBTQIA+ community in India.

The societal issue at the heart of this case was the recognition of the right to marry and establish a family for sexual and gender minority individuals. This issue is deeply rooted in the broader struggle for equality, dignity, and acceptance of LGBTQIA+ individuals in society.

This case highlighted the tension between the rights of minority groups and societal norms, and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying the Constitution in such contexts. Despite the court’s decision, the case has sparked ongoing debate and discussion about the rights of sexual and gender minorities in India. It represents a significant moment in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQIA+ rights in the country.

FACTS:

The case was initiated under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. A group of petitions was presented to the Supreme Court by members of the LGBTQIA+ community. These petitioners, comprising couples and individuals from sexual and gender minority communities, were advocating for the recognition of their marital rights equivalent to those of heterosexual couples.

They contested the gender-specific language in marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples. The petitioners sought validation of the right to marry and establish a family, invoking protections against discrimination, and the right to equality, dignity, personal liberty, privacy, personal autonomy, and freedom of conscience and expression. The proceedings of the case commenced on 25 November 2022.

QUESTIONS:

• What was the court’s reasoning behind not extending the right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India?

• How should fundamental rights such as the right to equality, life with dignity, freedom of speech and expression, religion, and movement be interpreted and applied in the context of rights of LGBTQIA+ persons?

• Should the relationships of sexual and gender minority individuals receive legal recognition, and is this a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution?

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS:

The court unanimously ruled that the Constitution does not provide a right to marry for sexual and gender minority individuals. All five judges concurred that the Special Marriage Act could not be construed to grant the right of LGBTQIA+ people to marry. The court unanimously acknowledged the right of transgender and intersex persons in heterosexual relationships to marry.

The court’s justification for not extending the right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India was multifaceted. The court asserted that the Constitution does not explicitly recognize a fundamental right to marry. It also stated that a practice cannot be elevated to the status of a fundamental right based on the significance accorded to it by law. The court further noted that it could neither invalidate the constitutional validity of the Special Marriage Act nor insert words into the Act due to its institutional constraints.

The court applied the fundamental rights such as the right to equality, life with dignity, freedom of speech and expression, religion, and movement in the context of rights of LGBTQIA+ persons. The court held that the freedom of all individuals, including queer couples, to enter into a union is safeguarded by Part III of the Constitution. It also stated that the term “sex” in Article 15 (1) must be interpreted to include sexual orientation.

Regarding the legal recognition of relationships of sexual and gender minority individuals, the court held that the state has a duty to acknowledge such unions and grant them benefits under law. However, it refrained from directly incorporating same-sex marriage. The court observed that the state’s failure to recognize the array of entitlements that result from a union would disproportionately impact queer couples who cannot marry under the current legal framework.

This judgement has ignited ongoing debate and discussion about the rights of sexual and gender minorities in India. It signifies a crucial moment in the continuing fight for LGBTQIA+ rights in the country.

WRITTEN BY: AKSHAYA ZAVAR

The Supreme Court of India

Unfold Law – Law Firm in Bangalore, Lawyers in Bangalore