JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

582

Message
show

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India

This case deals with the constitutional validity of LGBTQIA+ marriages.

Petitioners Arguments
The petitioners relied on the decisions of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. Union of India ((2017) 10 SCC 1) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4321) to argue in favour of the right to marriage and the right to love. They argued that the right to marry could not be withheld from a class of persons solely based on their sexual orientation. They relied on the SC’s decision in Navtej Singh Johar to state that the right to love and marry was recognised as a right in India. Further, they argued that same-sex marriages could be recognised under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They asserted that broader constitutional entitlements arise out of the right to life and personal liberty and the right to dignity which is embodied in the provisions of the Constitution including its Preamble and as a natural incident of Articles 14 , 19 and 21 . The petitioners relied on the judgement in NALSA v. Union of India (AIR 2014 SC 1863) to reiterate the fundamental rights of individuals who identify as queer. The petitioners argued that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act discriminates against couples of the same sex as it only recognizes the marriage between a ‘male’ and a ‘female,’ in effect denying them the same benefits as heterosexual couples. The petitioners seek declaration of Section 4(c) as unconstitutional, based on these grounds. Other personal laws/legislations such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 have been challenged on such grounds in similar petitions and the current plea has been tagged with these petitions. The petitioners seek declaration of the notice and objection provisions of the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act as void, in lieu of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15 , 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners seek declaration that the spouse of an Indian Citizen or Overseas Citizen of India, who is of foreign origin and identifies as queer, is entitled to register under the Citizenship Act, 1955 as an Overseas Citizen of India. The petitioners also seek declaration that a person is entitled to nominate anyone as ‘ next of kin ’ under relevant laws, in lieu of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Responders Arguments
The Union through its Counter Affidavit opposed same-sex marriages on the ground that ‘the notion of marriage itself necessarily and inevitably presupposes a union between two persons of the opposite sex.’ The respondent argued that the matter fell within the ambit of legislative action as it challenged provisions under acts like the Special Marriage Act. This was substantiated by arguing that the cultural ethos of the nation had to be accounted for in order to determine whether recognition of same sex marriage was acceptable. Non-recognition of the rights of queer Indians to marry and establish a family is not violative of the fundamental rights that are guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. Legitimate state interest is a constitutionally permissible ground to limit the legal recognition of marriage in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties of the Indian Constitution. It is only the Legislature that possesses the power to enact laws that govern human relationships and in doing so the legislature is also tasked with reflecting the collective wisdom of the nation. Individuals who have gotten married to Indian Citizens or Overseas Citizens of India in foreign countries are entitled to apply for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India under the Citizenship Act of 1955. The Supreme Court should not consider matters concerning the notice and objection provisions of the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act, as well as the adoption regulations, as they are not connected with the issue of same-sex marriage.
Last Listed On
2023-10-17
Start Date
2023-03-13
End Date
2023-10-17
Card Stage Date
2023-10-17
Review Petition No
W.P.(C) No. 1011/2022
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Disposal Time
7 months, 4 days

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

1. Through the landmark case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Apex Court decriminalised homosexuality, grounding this decision within the broader constitutional entitlements arising out of the rights to life, liberty and privacy as laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. Union of India . 2. On November 14th, 2022, two same-sex couples filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India. While the first petitioner sought to get their marriage registered under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 the petitions were centred around the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (the Act). Both petitions were admitted by a two judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli. Similar petitions pending before the High Courts were transferred to be heard with the writ petition. 3. On March 12th, 2023 , the Union filed a Counter Affidavit opposing same-sex marriages. They claimed that ‘the notion of marriage itself necessarily and inevitably presupposes a union between two persons of the opposite sex’. 4. On March 13th, 2023 , the three judge bench decided to refer the matter to a 5 judge bench comprising of Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

1. Is it within the rights of individuals belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community to enter into marriage? 2. If individuals from the LGBTQIA+ community possess the right to marry, can the Supreme Court issue a declaration affirming this? 3. Does the exclusion of LGBTQIA+ marriages from the Special Marriage Act, 1954 constitute discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Special Marriage Act, 1954

The court reasoned that since the submissions involved the interplay between constitutional rights and specific legislative enactments including the Special Marriage Act, 1954 , the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 , the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 , the Citizenship Act and the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act 2019 , the issues raised must be by a Bench of five Judges of this Court in view of the provisions of Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

NA

Parth Phiroze Mehrotra v. Union of India

Date Of Institution Start
2022-11-17
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 1020/2022

Sameer Samudra v. Union of India

Date Of Institution Start
2022-12-17
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 1105/2022

Aditi Anand v. Union of India

Date Of Institution Start
2022-12-19
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 1141/2022

Utkarsh Saxena v. Union of India

Date Of Institution Start
2022-12-19
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 1142/2022

Nitin Karani v. Union of India

Date Of Institution Start
2022-12-24
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 1150/2022

Harish Iyer v. Union of India

Date Of Institution Start
2023-03-04
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 319/ 2023

Integrated Network for Sexual Minorities (Infosem) v. Union of India

Date Of Institution Start
2023-04-18
Case No
W.P.(C) No. 478/2023

Same Sex Marriage: Potential Implications in Employment Law

Same Sex Marriage: Potential Implications in Employment Law
Source Of Info
Lexology
Date Of Fr
2023-05-15

The Judgment Of Obergefell v. Hodges And The Philosophical Foundations Of Same-Sex Marriage

The Judgment Of Obergefell v. Hodges And The Philosophical Foundations Of Same-Sex Marriage
Source Of Info
Live Law
Date Of Fr
2023-05-11