### Introduction
India’s Supreme Court has progressively expanded rights for LGBTQ+ individuals—from decriminalizing same-sex relations (Navtej Singh Johar, 2018) to recognizing transgender identity (NALSA, 2014). In 2023, the Court addressed one of the most sensitive questions: Should same-sex marriage be legally recognized in India?
A five-judge Constitution Bench presided over Supriyo v. Union of India, focusing on petitions aiming to amend the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to include same-sex marriages.
### What the Court Ruled
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark yet cautious verdict:
-
No judicial recognition of same-sex marriage: In a 3:2 majority, the Court held that the right to marriage under Article 21 does not extend to same-sex couples. Legalizing marriage is a legislative function, not a judicial one
Wikipedia+15Wikipedia+15Amnesty International+15Supreme Court Observer+2shankariasparliament.com+2Wikipedia+2GLAAD+2Wikipedia+2Supreme Court Observer+2. -
Rejection of civil unions: The Court also rejected the idea of imposing civil unions on the government, stating that such changes require Parliament’s authority
Wikipediashankariasparliament.com. -
Recognition of LGBTQ+ relationships: Despite not legalizing marriage, the Court affirmed the constitutional protections for queer relationships—e.g., choosing a life partner, cohabitation, privacy, and intimacy—under Article 21
Al JazeeraGLAAD. -
Parliament-directed committee: Endorsing the Solicitor General’s suggestion, the Court recommended forming an empowered committee (led by the Cabinet Secretary) to examine legal and social benefits—for instance, next-of-kin rights, joint bank accounts, hospital visitation, succession, etc.
The Guardian+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3.
### Majority vs. Minority: Different Visions
-
Majority opinion (3 judges): Marriage remains a social institution defined by heterosexual norms; altering the Special Marriage Act would amount to judicial overreach
Amnesty International+9shankariasparliament.com+9The Guardian+9. -
Chief Justice Chandrachud’s argument: While court powers are limited, he underscored that the concept of marriage evolves, and Parliament is empowered to make such changes. He also emphasized that queer relationships merit constitutional respect and dignity, regardless of marriage status
The Guardian+4Wikipedia+4AP News+4. -
Minority dissent (2 judges): Supported introducing civil unions or marriage rights under judicial review, citing protections under Articles 14, 15, and 21
Supreme Court Observer+8shankariasparliament.com+8The Guardian+8.
### Implications of the Ruling
✨ Gains
-
Non-Discrimination: The Court reiterated that queer people deserve equal treatment under law, including access to services and public life
reuters.com+6shankariasparliament.com+6The Guardian+6. -
Social validation: By mandating the government to form a committee, it recognized the sincerity of LGBTQ+ claims and set the stage for future legislation.
⚠️ Setbacks
-
No marriage equality legally recognized, meaning loss of key rights such as inheritance, pensions, adoption, etc.
-
Parliament’s inaction may prolong uncertainty.
-
Same-sex couples remain second-class citizens, reliant on piecemeal executive policies or state legislations.
### What Lies Ahead?
-
Parliamentary action: Only a constitutional amendment or new law (at central or state level) can legalize same-sex marriage or equivalent unions.
-
Committee follow-up: The government needs to constitute the recommended committee and forward its findings promptly.
-
Civil society role: Continued advocacy—like the 2022 Special Marriage (Amendment) Bill—may increase social and political pressure for reform
Al Jazeera+7shankariasparliament.com+7Them+7Them+1Amnesty International+1Wikipedia. -
Further judicial review: While review petitions were considered, as of January 2025 the Court maintained its ruling—but further judicial scrutiny remains possible
ETLegalWorld.com.
### Conclusion
The 2023 Supreme Court verdict on same-sex marriage marks a cautious milestone—affirming LGBTQ+ dignity while deferring marriage equality to lawmakers. It protects the fundamental freedoms of queer individuals but stops short of sanctioning full marital rights.
The judgment invites meaningful legislative debate and reform, highlighting a core democratic tension between judicial interpretation and parliamentary law-making. The journey towards marriage equality in India continues—rooted in constitutional values, democratic participation, and social justice.