SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) NO. 1011/2022

BENCH: Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli & Justice P.S. Narasimha

FACTS:

In the landmark case Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. vs. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4321), the Supreme Court declared Section 377 unconstitutional with respect to consensual relationships between queer individuals. The Court found that Section 377 violated Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution, as it discriminated based on sexual orientation and infringed on the right to sexual privacy. Since this judgment, several petitions have highlighted a broad range of constitutional rights that should extend to the queer community, including the rights to autonomy in choosing a partner, sexual privacy, and dignity.

Following the decriminalization, various petitioners approached different High Courts, seeking the legal recognition of marriage for LGBTQIA+ couples. They argued that denying such recognition constituted discrimination and violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution. Petitioners asserted that granting the right to marry would allow LGBTQIA+ individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of speech and expression, privacy, autonomy, and dignity. Some petitioners also sought equal recognition for the legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) and the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA). The core issue was whether the "right to marry" should be recognized as a fundamental right for non-heterosexual couples. In response, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the case, acknowledging the violence and discrimination faced by the LGBTQIA+ community in India. The Court admitted twenty connected petitions, involving fifty-two individuals, including seventeen LGBTQIA+ couples. Due to the significance of the case, it was heard by a Five-Judge Constitution bench.

ISSUES:

Whether the denial of a fundamental right to marry for queer couples amounts to a violation of their right to privacy and dignity?

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

In this case, the Supreme Court's Five-Judge bench unanimously held that the right to marriage is not a fundamental right for LGBTQIA+ individuals, distinguishing it from the right to choose a partner. While the right to choose a partner was affirmed as a fundamental right, the Court ruled that only the State could legislate to recognize queer marriages. The majority opinion emphasized that legal recognition of marriage is a function of the State and not an inherent right of the institution, and that benefits provided by marriage come from State recognition, which could only be granted through legislation.

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Marriage Act (SMA) and the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA) for transgender and intersex people in heterosexual relationships, recognizing their right to marry. However, it held that the non-recognition of LGBTQIA+ unions did not violate their fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, and dignity under Articles 15 and 21. In a 3:2 verdict, the majority rejected the obligation of the State to recognize civil unions, maintaining that private relationships do not automatically demand State recognition. The dissenting opinion argued that the State has a duty to extend civil union recognition to all, in line with constitutional principles of equality, freedom of expression, and the right to life.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the Supreme Court's decision to deny the recognition of marriage as a fundamental right for LGBTQIA+ individuals represents a significant but cautious stance on the issue of same-sex unions in India. The Court distinguished between the right to choose a partner, which it upheld as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and the right to marry, which it determined was not constitutionally mandated for non-heterosexual couples. This reasoning places the responsibility on the State to legislate on the matter, reflecting a belief that marriage as an institution is subject to societal and legislative decisions, rather than being automatically conferred as a fundamental right.

The majority opinion emphasized that while the Court affirmed the autonomy of LGBTQIA+ individuals in choosing partners, it left the decision to legally recognize marriages or civil unions to the legislature. It viewed marriage as a State-recognized institution that provides certain rights, and thus, only the legislature could extend those benefits to queer couples. By contrast, the dissenting opinion argued that the State has an obligation to extend recognition to LGBTQIA+ unions to uphold equality and protect the dignity of individuals, suggesting a broader interpretation of constitutional rights. The Court’s decision in this case thus highlights the tension between judicial interpretation and legislative action in advancing social equality and justice, and it places the onus on the State to address the legal status of LGBTQIA+ relationships.