Case Comment: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union Of India
- IJLLR Journal
- Oct 14
- 2 min read
Prof. Shakeel Ahmad, Dean & Professor, Department of Law, Aligarh Muslim University Abhishek Kumar, Research Scholar, Aligarh Muslim University
Case: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Five-Judge Constitution Bench (Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice P.S. Narasimha)
Date of Decision: October 17, 2023
1. Introduction
When it comes to LGBTQ+ rights and same-sex partnerships in India, the landmark decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs. Union Of India is hard to miss. A five-judge panel of the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench reached this conclusion after hearing several petitions that sought to change or interpret the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) in order to legalise same-sex marriage. Although the LGBTQ community's basic rights, such as the freedom to associate with others and live in harmony, were upheld by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, the court ultimately decided against granting same-sex couples the legal status of marriage, leaving that decision to lawmakers. The judgment is characterized by its complex split on key issues, offering a nuanced, albeit contested, perspective on the intersection of constitutional rights, social change, and the separation of powers.
2. Background
The genesis of the Supriyo case lies in a series of writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court and subsequently consolidated. The petitioners, a diverse group including same-sex couples and prominent LGBTQ+ rights advocates, sought a judicial declaration recognizing their right to marry. Their main argument was that the current legal system was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. This was especially true of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which allows civil marriages but defines the union using gender-specific terms (“male” and “female”). Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (life and personal liberty), and 19 (freedom of speech) were used by them in their argument that the rejection of marital equality due to sexual orientation was unlawful.
