Supriyo Supriya Chakraborty Abhay Dang Union of India Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice other connected cases, 2023 INSC 920 are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India. A five-judge Constitution Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha, heard 20 connected cases brought by 52 petitioners.Supreme Court Order:
The petitioners, couples and individuals from sexual and gender minority communities, request recognition of the right to marry and establish a family based on protections from discrimination, the right to equality, dignity, personal liberty, privacy, and personal autonomy, and freedom of conscience and expression. Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, a statutory body of the Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi Government, intervened to support extending the right to marry and adopt for sexual and gender minority individuals.
The respondent, the Union Government under the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership and its statutory body National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, opposes extending the right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India, due to societal, cultural and religious history, consistent legislative policy, popular morality and majoritarian views.Respondent: Intervenor: The State Governments of Assam, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the State Government of Rajasthan led by the Indian National Congress, and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh led by the YSR Congress Party, intervened to oppose the right.
Hindu organizations like Shri Sanatam Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha and Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, Islamic organizations like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Telangana Markazi Shia Ulema Council, the women empowerment organization Bharatiya Stree Shakti, and the educational nonprofit organization Kanchan Foundation, intervened to oppose the right.
As the opponents raised concerns over the well-being of children in same-sex families, independent professional association, the Indian Psychiatric Society, supported marriage and adoption rights for sexual and gender minority individuals based on scientific evidence.
Case summary The petitioners, consisting of couples and individuals from sexual and gender minority communities, requested the Supreme Court to Recognise the marriage between any two persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity, under the following marriage laws, by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution: Special Marriage Act of 1954The petitions seeking recognition under the Special Marriage Act of 1954 include: , , , , , , , , , , , and . Hindu Marriage Act of 1955The petitions seeking recognition under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 include: , and . Foreign Marriage Act of 1969The petitions seeking recognition under the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969 include: , , , , , and . Declare the notice and objection provisions of the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act as void, by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.The petitions challenging the notice and objection provisions of secular marriage laws—the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969— include: , , , , and . Declare that a foreign-origin sexual and gender minority spouse of an Indian Citizen or Overseas Citizen of India is entitled to apply for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India under the Citizenship Act of 1955.The petitions seeking eligibility for the foreign-origin queer spouse under the Citizenship Act of 1955 include and . Declare that a person can nominate anyone in the place of 'next of kin' under all relevant laws by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.Petitioner: The respondent, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union Government, opposed the request, including the extension of the right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India, arguing that Non-recognition of the rights of sexual and gender minority individuals to marry and establish a family does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. Legitimate state interests are constitutionally permissible grounds for limiting the legal recognition of marriage following the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties of the Indian Constitution. The Legislature reflects the collective wisdom of the nation, and it solely possesses the power to enact a law governing human relationships. As the Indian marriage laws do not recognise same-sex marriages, a foreign-origin sexual or gender minority spouse of an Indian Citizen or Overseas Citizen of India is entitled to apply for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India under the Citizenship Act of 1955.Respondent: The challenge to notice and objection provisions of the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act and adoption regulations unrelated to same-sex marriage. Therefore, the Supreme Court should exclude those matters from the current Case.Respondent:
Intervenors
Government The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, a statutory body of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union Government, intervened in the Case opposing the extension of the right to adopt for sexual and gender minority individuals.
The State Governments of Assam, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the State Government of Rajasthan led by the Indian National Congress, and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh led by the YSR Congress Party, intervened to oppose the right. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, a statutory body of the Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi Government, intervened to support extending the right to marry and adopt for sexual and gender minority individuals. The Commission recommended guidelines to ensure the well-being of children in same-sex adoptions.Intervenor:
Religious organisation Hindu organisations Shri Sanatam Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha and Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti and Islamic organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Telangana Markazi Shia Ulema Council intervened in the Case opposing the extension of the right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India on socio-legal and religious grounds.Intervenor: Intervenor:
Background A gay couple, Nikesh and Sonu, filed a petition seeking legal recognition of their marriage in the Kerala High Court on 24 January 2020. Kerala High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman admitted the petition on 27 January 2020. Four sexual and gender minority individuals, Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar M, Giti Thadani and G. Oorvas, filed a petition seeking legal recognition of marriage in the Delhi High Court on 8 September 2020. A two-judge Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Chief Justice of Delhi High Court D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan, admitted the petition on 14 September 2020.
A gay couple, Supriya Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, filed a petition seeking legal recognition of their marriage in the Supreme Court of India on 14 November 2022.Petitioner: A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, admitted the petition along with another gay couple, Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj Anand, on 25 November 2022.
The Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala directed high courts to transfer nine similar petitions— eight from Delhi High Court and one from Kerala High Court— to the Supreme Court to consider alongside the original petitioners.Supreme Court Order: On 15 March 2023, the Supreme Court admitted 20 connected petitions filed by 52 sexual and gender minority individuals, including 17 couples from sexual and gender minority communities.
Most of the petitioners wanted recognition of right to marry under secular marriage laws—the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act.The petitions seeking recognition under the secular marriage laws—the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969— include: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and As various news reports,News reports on unwarranted interferences in marriage due to the notice and objection provision of secular marriage laws: case studies and official publications of the Law Commission documented unwarranted interferences in marriage due to the notice and objection provision of secular marriage laws and recommended its removal, most of the petitioners seeking recognition under secular marriage laws challenged the constitutionality of the notice and objection provisions.
Some of the petitioners are practising Hindus who believe that Hinduism does not prohibit marriage between sexual and gender minority individuals. They argued that excluding couples from sexual and gender minority communities from the Hindu Marriage Act amounted to a violation of their freedom to practice their religion.
Many advocates represented the petitioners, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represent the respondents. The Supreme Court appointed Advocate Arundhati Katju and Kanu Agrawal as the Nodal Counsel for the petitioners and respondents, respectively.