Supriyo Chakraborty case

Polity & Governance glossary

Also called: Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), Same-sex marriage case · Topic: Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Remedies · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India (17 October 2023) is a judgment by five Supreme Court judges. It held that there is no fundamental right to marry and that only Parliament can decide whether same-sex couples may marry. It also confirmed that queer persons have the right to form relationships and to be protected from harassment [1].

It matters because it shows where the Court stops. The Court can protect a choice the State tries to block. It will not create a new legal status, such as marriage, that only the legislature can create.

Explanation

What the Court decided

  • No fundamental right to marry [1].
  • Marriage is a legal status created by statute (by a law passed by a legislature).

  • So it is not a freedom that exists on its own under Part III.

  • Same-sex marriage is for Parliament [1].

  • The Court did not rewrite or read new words into the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

  • Same-sex couples still cannot marry under that Act.

  • Civil unions were rejected by 3:2 [1].

  • A civil union is a legal status for a couple that gives them some of the rights of marriage.
  • A 3:2 majority (three judges against two) refused to recognise it.

What the Court affirmed

  • Queer persons have the right to form relationships [1].
  • They have the right to protection from harassment by the police and by their own families [1].
  • These rights build on earlier cases:
  • NALSA (2014): transgender persons were recognised as a "third gender", and a person may identify their own gender.
  • Puttaswamy (2017): sexual orientation is part of privacy under Art. 21.
  • Navtej Singh Johar (2018): consensual sex between adults of the same sex is no longer a crime.

The committee route

  • The Court recorded the Union's offer to form a committee [1].
  • The committee is to look at practical entitlements of queer couples, such as:
  • ration cards;
  • bank nominations (naming a partner to receive money from an account);

  • medical decisions for a partner.

  • Review petitions were filed later. Check their current status before the exam.

Limits of the ruling

  • It protects a relationship, but it does not give it legal status.
  • Rights that flow from marriage, such as inheritance or adoption as a couple, stay with the legislature.
  • This is judicial restraint (the court choosing not to act where elected bodies should decide).

In the Constitution and practice

  • Constitutional base:
  • Art. 21: life and personal liberty, read to mean a life with dignity. It covers privacy, choice of partner and sexual orientation.
  • Arts. 14 and 15: equality and non-discrimination. These were grounds in Navtej.

  • The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is the law that was challenged. It was left unchanged [1].

  • The line of cases it belongs to:

  • NALSA v. Union of India (2014): recognised transgender persons as a third gender.
  • K.S. Puttaswamy (24 August 2017, nine judges, unanimous): privacy is part of Art. 21. It covers marriage, family life and sexual orientation.
  • Navtej Singh Johar (6 September 2018, five judges): IPC s.377 was read down (narrowed by the court, not fully struck down). It overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013) and relied on constitutional morality (the values of the Constitution, not the majority's social views, guide courts).

  • Supriyo (17 October 2023, five judges): the courts stopped here. They removed the crime but did not grant the right to marry [1].

  • Contrast with choice-of-partner cases:

  • Lata Singh (2006), Shafin Jahan (Hadiya case, 2018) and Shakti Vahini (2018) protected an adult's choice of partner under Art. 21.

  • Those cases dealt with marriages already allowed by law. Supriyo asked the Court to create a new kind of marriage, and it refused.

  • In practice: the matter now rests with Parliament and with the Union's committee on practical entitlements [1].

Don't confuse with

  • Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Navtej decriminalised consensual same-sex relations by reading down s.377. Supriyo is about marriage, and the Court refused to recognise it.
  • Right to marry a person of one's choice (Shafin Jahan, 2018): this protects an adult's choice within existing marriage law under Art. 21. Supriyo held there is no fundamental right to marry as such.
  • Civil union and marriage: a civil union gives a couple only some rights of marriage. In Supriyo, the Court rejected both: marriage was left to Parliament, and civil unions were rejected 3:2 [1].
  • NALSA (2014): NALSA is about gender identity (the third gender and self-identification). Supriyo is about same-sex couples' legal status.

Prelims Hooks

  • Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India: judgment dated 17 October 2023, by a five-judge bench [1].
  • Trap: the Court held there is no fundamental right to marry. Marriage is a statutory status [1].
  • Civil unions were rejected by a 3:2 majority. Same-sex marriage was not unanimously rejected on every point [1].
  • The Special Marriage Act, 1954 was not changed or read down. Same-sex marriage was left to Parliament [1].
  • The Court recorded the Union's offer of a committee on entitlements of queer couples, such as ration cards, bank nominations and medical decisions [1].
  • Order of cases: NALSA (2014) → Puttaswamy (2017) → Navtej (2018, overruled Koushal 2013) → Supriyo (2023).

Mains Points

  • Judicial activism and judicial restraint:
  • In Navtej and Joseph Shine, the Court used constitutional morality to protect dignity against social disapproval.
  • In Supriyo, it held back. Creating a new legal status like marriage needs a law, so it is for Parliament.

  • Use this case to show the separation of powers limit on courts in GS-II answers.

  • Rights without status:

  • Queer persons can now live together without fear of a crime charge, and they are protected from harassment [1].
  • But they lack marriage-linked rights, such as nominations and medical consent.

  • The Union's committee [1] is a partial step. A law from Parliament would be the full answer.

  • Is the Court's role complete?

  • Some see deference to Parliament as respect for democracy.
  • Others see it as leaving a minority dependent on the majority's will. That goes against the counter-majoritarian role (protecting minorities from the majority) seen in Navtej.

Related concepts

Read more

Sources

  1. 1Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 920 (judgment dated 17 October 2023) — Supreme Court of Indiaapi.sci.gov.in · tier 1