Case Analysis: Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. V. Union of India
Citation: 2023 INSC 920, W.P.(C) No. 1011/2022

Brief Facts
In the landmark case of Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. V. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India (Court) addressed the pressing issue of legal recognition for same-sex marriages. This matter was brought forth by 52 petitioners across 20 connected cases. The five-judge Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices S.K. Kaul, S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, undertook a thorough examination of the petitions. Ultimately, the Court unanimously held that there is no unqualified fundamental right to marry under the Constitution, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 4 of both the SMA and the FMA, which recognize marriages solely between heterosexual couples.

The case emanated from various petitions seeking the legal recognition of marriages between LGBTQIA+ individuals. Post the decriminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. V. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4321), which struck down Section 377 of the IPC, these petitions sought to extend constitutional rights to marriage for the queer community, citing fundamental rights violations under Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution. Recognizing the significance of the issue, the Supreme Court consolidated and transferred similar petitions from Delhi and Kerala High Courts to itself. In March 2023, these petitions were referred to a Constitution Bench for judicial scrutiny.

Year: 2023 - Jurisdiction: India
Law(s): Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ("Constitution"); Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ("SMA"); Section 4 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 ("FMA")
Bench Composition:
Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R. Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice P.S. Narasimha

Issues:

• Fundamental Right to Marry: Whether the denial of the fundamental right to marry for queer couples constitutes a violation of their rights to privacy, autonomy, and dignity under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.
   
• Constitutional Validity of SMA and FMA: Whether the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, which recognize only heterosexual marriages, are constitutionally valid.

Decision
The Supreme Court's decision in Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. V. Union of India was pivotal in delineating the scope of marriage rights under the Indian legal framework. The bench unanimously concurred that while the right to choose a partner is fundamental, the right to marry is not, thereby positioning the onus on the State to legislate in favor of marriage recognition for queer couples.

Majority Opinion
In a 3:2 split verdict, the majority upheld the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), and Section 4 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (FMA), asserting that marriage benefits arise from state recognition, not from the inherent nature of marriage itself. Consequently, extending these benefits to queer couples would necessitate legislative action, which falls outside judicial purview. The majority opinion emphasized that the non-recognition of LGBTQIA+ unions did not impinge upon their rights to privacy, autonomy, and dignity under Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the right to marry, unlike the right to choose a partner, requires legislative endorsement. The judgment underscored that while the judiciary can acknowledge the right to form relationships, it cannot extend the legal framework of marriage to same-sex couples without explicit statutory provision.

Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting justices, however, posited that the right to form civil unions for queer individuals is inherent within Articles 19 and 21. They underscored a positive obligation on the State to democratize private spaces and curtail discrimination, arguing that equal protection under Articles 14 and 15 mandates legal recognition of such unions. The dissenting opinion recognized the need for legal acknowledgment of civil unions to ensure the protection and equal treatment of LGBTQIA+ individuals under the law.

Ratio Decidendi
The majority rationale centered on the distinction between the right to choose a partner and the right to marry, affirming that the latter necessitates legislative endorsement. The Court concluded that marriage, as a state-recognized institution, confers benefits through legislation, and thus, any extension of these benefits to queer couples must be legislated by the State.

Obiter Dicta
The majority observed the naturalness of queerness and the enduring discrimination faced by the LGBTQIA+ community, reaffirming the need for legislative action to address these inequities. They acknowledged the societal and legal challenges faced by queer individuals and emphasized that legislative intervention is crucial to achieve equality and justice for the LGBTQIA+ community.

In a nuanced and comprehensive judgment, the Supreme Court held that there is no unqualified fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the SMA and FMA provisions, which recognize only marriages between heterosexual couples. The decision, marked by a 3:2 split, highlighted the judiciary's recognition of the 'right to relationship' for queer couples while underscoring that the judiciary cannot confer a right to marry absent specific legislative action. The dissenting opinion's recognition of 'civil unions' for queer individuals further accentuates the ongoing discourse on the rights and recognition of LGBTQIA+ relationships in India.

Analysis
The Court's judgment in Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. V. Union of India marks a significant juncture in the legal discourse surrounding LGBTQIA+ rights in India. By delineating the boundaries of judicial intervention and legislative prerogative, the Court underscored the necessity for statutory reform to ensure equitable treatment of queer unions.

While the decision reiterates the fundamental rights of privacy, autonomy, and dignity, it highlights the limitations of judicial activism in the absence of explicit legislative mandates. This ruling resonates deeply within the Indian legal landscape, reflecting an ongoing struggle for equality and recognition for the LGBTQIA+ community. The Court's emphasis on legislative action as the pathway to realizing marriage equality underscores the critical role of the legislature in shaping an inclusive and just society.

Conclusion
The Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. V. Union of India case stands as a landmark decision in the jurisprudence concerning the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals in India. This case intricately balanced constitutional principles with legislative prerogatives, meticulously delineating the contours of fundamental rights in the context of marriage. The Supreme Court, through its decision, has articulated a nuanced understanding of the distinction between the right to choose a partner and the right to marry, underscoring the legislative domain's primacy in enacting laws to recognize same-sex marriages.

The unanimous bench recognized the inherent dignity and autonomy of queer individuals, affirming their right to privacy, bodily integrity, and the freedom to form relationships. However, the Court's reluctance to extend these rights to include a fundamental right to marry reflects a cautious approach, emphasizing the necessity for legislative intervention. The ruling underscores that the benefits associated with marriage are a result of state recognition and cannot be judicially conferred without statutory backing.

The majority's adherence to judicial restraint highlights the judiciary's role in interpreting laws rather than creating them, asserting that any expansion of marriage rights to include LGBTQIA+ unions must emanate from the legislative framework. This decision reinforces the separation of powers, emphasizing that substantive changes to marriage laws should be deliberated and enacted by the legislature, reflecting democratic processes and societal consensus.

Conversely, the dissenting opinions illuminate a progressive vision, advocating for the extension of marriage rights based on constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. The dissent underscores a transformative approach, positing that the State has a positive obligation to dismantle barriers that perpetuate inequality and to democratize private spaces, ensuring that constitutional rights are fully realized for all individuals, irrespective of sexual orientation. \

This case has significantly contributed to the discourse on LGBTQIA+ rights, highlighting the evolving interpretations of constitutional provisions in light of contemporary societal norms and values. While the judgment maintains the status quo concerning the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, it unequivocally affirms the rights to privacy, autonomy, and dignity for queer individuals, thereby laying a robust foundation for future legislative and judicial advancements.

In conclusion, Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. V. Union of India encapsulates the dynamic interplay between judicial interpretation and legislative action in the realm of fundamental rights. It reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional principles while respecting the legislative domain's primacy in effectuating substantive legal changes. This decision, with its rich legal reasoning and profound implications, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing journey toward achieving full equality and recognition for the LGBTQIA+ community in India.

References:
Referred Statutes:

• Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950
• Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
• Section 4 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969

Referred Cases:

• Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. V. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4321)