The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 920 (17 October 2023), marks one of the most significant developments in India’s LGBTQIA+ rights discourse. Although the Court declined to legally recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions, the verdict offers a progressive, rights-affirming analysis of equality, dignity, and constitutional morality.
The Bench comprised CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice P.S. Narasimha. The core questions before the Court included whether LGBTQIA+ persons have a right to marry, whether excluding them from the Special Marriage Act, 1954 violates Article 14, and whether LGBTQIA+ couples have a right to form civil unions recognised by the State.
A Constitutionally Sensitive Yet Institutionally Restrained Verdict
The Court unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. While acknowledging the lived experiences of queer couples, all judges found that the SMA—expressly designed for heterosexual unions—cannot be judicially rewritten to include “spouses” instead of “man” and “woman.” Doing so would amount to extensive legislative revision, impacting related laws on adoption, succession, guardianship, maintenance, and surrogacy.
The judges also carefully examined the socio-legal implications of altering family law. The Court recognised that even as Indian society is gradually becoming more open to queer relationships, our consolidated family law framework remains deeply heteronormative. A piecemeal judicial reading-in would create inconsistencies across statutes.
The Majority vs Minority: Civil Unions & Adoption
A 3:2 majority (Justices Bhat, Kohli, Narasimha) held that queer couples do not have a right to legally recognised civil unions, and extending such recognition would violate the separation of powers. They similarly held that unmarried couples—including queer couples—cannot jointly adopt under Section 57 of the JJ Act.
The minority (CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul), however, delivered a powerful rights-expansive view:
-
LGBTQIA+ couples do have a right to form civil unions.
-
The State has a duty to legally recognise these unions under Articles 19 and 21.
-
The JJ Act permits unmarried and queer couples to jointly adopt (striking down CARA Regulation 5(3) as ultra vires).
The Court, despite its disagreements, unanimously recognised the real disadvantages faced by queer couples and directed the Union Government to constitute a committee to determine rights, benefits, and entitlements for queer partnerships.
A Progressive Recognition: Transgender Persons in Heterosexual Relationships Can Marry
All judges held that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws. Excluding them would violate Article 15 and the Transgender Persons Act, 2019.
What This Means for India’s Future of LGBTQIA+ Rights
The Supriyo verdict is a pivotal moment. It affirms dignity, autonomy, and the right to partner-choice for LGBTQIA+ individuals, even though it stops short of legalising same-sex marriage or civil unions.
However, the judgment also reinforces a critical truth, The power to reform marriage, adoption, guardianship, succession, and other family laws rests with the legislature. Parliament—representative of the will of the Indian people—is the body equipped to harmonise the family law ecosystem and introduce inclusive reforms. Judicial recognition alone cannot address the deep structural changes needed across statutes.
Conclusion
While Supriyo does not provide full marriage equality, it is far from a setback. It lays down a progressive constitutional foundation, acknowledges the lived experiences of queer communities, and pushes India toward a much-needed legislative conversation. As societal acceptance grows, the next chapter in LGBTQIA+ rights will be written in Parliament, through inclusive reforms that protect, recognize, and empower queer families across India.