A Socio-Legal Analysis of The Landmark Judgment Supriyo V UOI
The case of Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023) is a landmark judgment in LGBTQIA+ rights in India. The case posed a simple but profound question: Does the right to marry extend to same-sex couples under the Indian Constitution? The Supreme Court said “not yet”- a legally cautious but socially impactful verdict.
In this article, we will delve into the socio-legal intricacies of the Supriyo v Union of India, exploring its significance and broader implications in society.
Facts of the Case
In 2020, the petitioners, Supriyo aka Supriya Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, on behalf of 21 same-sex couples, approached the Apex Court seeking the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On March 13th, 2023, a 3-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud referred the case to a 5-judge Constitution Bench for a comprehensive examination. After 10 days of extensive hearings, concluding on May 11th, 2023, the 5-judge bench reserved its judgment, which was finally pronounced on October 17th, 2023.
Issue involved
Whether the denial of a fundamental right to marry for queer couples amount to a violation of their right to privacy and dignity?
The Court’s Ruling
The Court voted 3:2 against allowing same-sex marriage and adoption.
The court had the following takeaways-
- Marriage is a statutory institution; its definition under law cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation alone.
- Fundamental rights protect the choice of partner and personal autonomy, but not an unqualified right to marry.
- Any legal recognition of same-sex marriage must come from Parliament.
- The dissenting opinion argued that the State has a positive obligation to democratise the private sphere and override the right to privacy in certain cases to curtail discrimination against queer individuals. Additionally, minority opinion expressed that the right to form civil unions is inherent in Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which provide for the right to life and the freedom of expression
Analysis
This decision must be analysed from three perspectives- Legal, Moral and Sociological.
- Legal Perspective
From a legal view, the Supreme Court’s decision reflects a balance between constitutional interpretation and restraint. The Court acknowledged the dignity and autonomy of same-sex couples but maintained that marriage, as a statutory construct, lies within Parliament’s domain. It distinguished between the right to choose a partner (a fundamental right under Article 21) and the right to marry (a legal right conferred by statute). This reasoning shows fidelity to the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that judicial interpretation does not rewrite existing legislation.
Nevertheless, critics argue that such restraint overlooks the judiciary’s duty to protect fundamental rights when legislative inertia sustains inequality.
- Moral Perspective
Morally, the judgment sits at a crossroads between constitutional morality and social morality. While the Court empathised with the hardships and stigma faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals, it lacked in affirming their full equality through marriage rights. This creates a moral paradox, where we can see recognition of dignity without the grant of equal status. Supporters view the decision as a step towards inclusive dialogue, while critics see it as a failure to translate moral acknowledgement into tangible justice. From a moral lens, equality and love demand more than sympathy; they require courage to remove taboos and discrimination from society.
- Sociological Perspective
Sociologically, Supriyo v. UOI highlights the ongoing tension between law and societal acceptance. Indian society remains deeply influenced by heteronormative family structures, and the judgment mirrors that reality. By deferring to Parliament, the Court arguably sought to align legal change with gradual social transformation. Yet, this delay further supports exclusion, leaving same-sex couples without recognition in key institutions like family, property, and social legitimacy.
The case, thus, exposes the gap between progressive legal ideals and conservative social norms, a gap that can only be narrowed through education, adequate representation, and public awareness alongside legal reform.
Personal Opinion
The judiciary, being a vital organ of our democracy, has certain powers alongside limitations. I certainly believe that those limitations should not be trespassed, and the idea of the separation of powers should be respected and followed. When I first read the judgment of this case, I did not find anything wrong in it. The judiciary was following the word of law, as it should. However, when I read the previous judgments like Navtej Singh Johar v UOI of 2018, which was 5 years older than this case, I felt that the judiciary rightly used its power of interpretation and broadened its scope for a larger good. This made me think that the same could have been done in the Supriyo case, since there are lakhs of LGBTQIA+ couples and individuals in the country, and unfortunately, they have half rights, where they are recognised as humans but not as spouses.
If the author were to give their opinion on this from a sociological perspective, the belief is that the judgment further propagates the idea of the existence of only 2 genders, because the institution of marriage is the beginning of all other social institutions in society, as it involves socially accepted and socially sanctioned means of procreation.
Nevertheless, there is an opinion that India was not ready for an opposite judgment. There would have been a huge dissent and dissatisfaction among people. The reason is that most people in India haven’t changed their mindset, and they live in the same world where only a man and a woman can marry each other. There would have been a lot of resistance seen. So in a way, we can say, the judgment was good for the time being. If we really want to change things, we first need small, grassroots-level steps like education, awareness, and campaigns, which will first remove stigma and taboos. Then, we will be ready for an opposite judgment in our democracy.
We should not aim for revolution; we should aim for reform.