Text

Supriyo@Supriya Chakraborty vs. Union of India 2023

---

FACTS OF THE CASE
The case gains National attention beginning in early 2023. It originated from two red
petitions filed in the Supreme Court on November 14, 2022 by same sex couples seeking
legal recognition of their marriage. The first petition was filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and
Abhay dark, while the second came from part of Feroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj Anand. The
petitioner specially challenged section 4C of special marriage Act, 1954 are going that it
discrimination needs against same sex couples by dining them right such as adoption
surrogacy and access to employment and retirement benefits. The supreme court
subsequently consolidated similar petition that were pending before various high courts
including those challenge 1955 and the foreign marriage Act 2023 judge bench led by chief
justice DY Chandrachud to referred the matter to a 5 judge constitution bench. After 10 days
of hearing, the bench reserved its judgement on May 11 2023 and ultimately delivered its
product on October 17, 2023 addressing the issue of marriage equality for LGBTQIA
community.

ISSUES OF THE CASE
 Whether the union government argues that deciding on the legalisation of the same
tax marriage would reach the doctrine of separation of powers as management is a
matter for the less session not the judiciary?
 Whether the constitution of India guarantee is a fundamental right to marry?
 Whether a transgender individual in a heterosexual relationship is entitled to marry
under the current laws prevailing in India?
 Whether same sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry under the
current Indian laws prevailing in the country?
 Whether the same checks are unmarried cure couples can adopt children under the
Indian laws which are framed with respect to protect the interest of the child?
 Whether the special marriage Act violets the Constitution by not allowing same sex
marriages being accepted in the society as well as the legal
phenomena of the country?

ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE
The contentions of the both the side of this case has been explained below:
Petitioner’s contention
Repetitionist presented a robust and constitutionally grounded argument asserting that the
exclusion of sexual and zender minority couples from the framework of existing marriage
laws constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights. Central to their contention was the in
vocation of article 32 of the Indian constitution, which empowers individuals to directly
approach the supreme court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The argue that
the note is an object provisions under special marriage Act and the foreign marriage Act this
proportionately burden who will couples, exposing them to social discrimination harassment
and potential there right to privacy and dignity.
The petitioner anchors their claims in the equality Grand entry under article 14 is catering
that any legal resume which fields to recognise of protect and individual self-determined
sexual orientation and gender identity is inherently irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
They emphasize the need for substantial equality principle recognised in landmark Supreme
Court decisions such as LT. C o l. nitisha vs union of India and Deepika Singh versus Central
administrative tribunal, where the core technology right of ethical families is those that
deviate from the head through normative model and that such family that equally entire to
legal protection and respect.
Further strengthening their position, the petitioner drew on a trilogy of foundational
judgement that have expanded the constitution rights on sexual and gender minorities nlsa
versus union of India which form the rights of transgender persons justice K.S Putta Swamy
versus union of India which established privacy as a fundamental right inclusive of autonomy
and identity and Navtej Singh Johar versus union of India was be criminalised same sex

relation and underscored the rights to identity equality and non discrimination. These rules,
that create a logical and moral imperative for extending the rights to marry and form a family
to sexual and gender minority individuals

Respondent’s contention
The traditional concept of marriage in India is deeply embedded in the nation's social,
religious and legal fabric, and has consistently been understood as a union between
individuals of opposite centres. This understanding is rooted in centuries of the custom and
law forms we have a foundation of personal laws across various religious communities. It is
argued that this long standing decision and definition should not be altered through judicial
interventions as any such reform falls within the domain of the legislative branch, which
possesses democratic and authority to social policy changes.
Marriage under Indian law is governed by personal laws that reflect distinct religious and
cultural beliefs for instant among Hindus regarded not only as a legal arrangement but as a
sacred sacrament, embroidered spiritual and moral duties to the share between a man and
woman. Under Islamic all the marriage is treated as a contract it is still confined to a
biological man and woman. Does all these foundation religious and legal frameworks to
accommodate the same sex messages would according to this view infringe upon religious
doctrine and existing statutory schemes.

JUDGEMENTS OF THE CASE
In a landmark 3:2 majority decision Supreme Court of India declined to grant legal
recognition to same sex matches moment in the countries evolving dis course on lgbtq Plus
right. The majority opinion comprising 3 is justice concluded that the right to marry is not a
constitutional guaranteed fundamental right and therefore any change in its legal status must
not come from the legislative arm of the government. The emphasize that special marriage
Act, 1954 particularly section 4C does not violate the fundamental rights of same sex
couples. According to the majority also the same sets couples are not permitted to marry
under existing loss they are not entirely without legal options. The judgement suggested that
live in relationships or civil unions could serve as alternative legal frameworks for adults
their rational and personal leaves without necessity imposed overhaul of the marriage laws.
This position underscores the courts difference to the doctrine of separation of power

asserting that substantial changes to the institution of marriage fall within the exclusive
registration of parliament not the judiciary. However, this view was strongly contested by the
dissenting judges, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, who maintained
that the right to marry should indeed be recognized as a fundamental right protected
under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

---

Detail Information

Title

Supriyo@Supriya Chakraborty vs. Union of India 2023

Court

: supreme court., 2022

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

W.P. (C) No. 1001/2022 DIARY No.

Matter(s)

-

Councels

Not Known

Statement of Responsibility

Sweety Kumari Shaw/Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment