Summary
The Constitution Bench declined to recognise same-sex marriage by rewriting marriage statutes. By a 3–2 majority, it also rejected a judicially enforceable entitlement to legal recognition of civil unions and upheld the challenged restriction on joint adoption by unmarried couples. It affirmed queer persons’ partner choice and protection from coercion, recognised transgender persons’ entitlement to heterosexual marriage under existing law, and directed a Cabinet Secretary-led committee to examine discriminatory benefit exclusions.
Issues
- Whether the Constitution guaranteed an unqualified right to marry or required legal recognition of queer civil unions.
- Whether marriage statutes could be invalidated or read in gender-neutral terms to enable same-sex marriage.
- Whether the joint-adoption restriction was invalid and what protective or remedial directions should issue.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 32, Constitution of IndiaThe opinions distinguished protection of choice, dignity and cohabitation from an enforceable demand to create marital or civil-union status; the majority left creation of that framework to enacted law. (¶¶ Bhat J.: 45–70, 149, Narasimha J.: 4, 14–20)
- Section 4 and connected scheme, Special Marriage Act, 1954The Court declined to rewrite the statutory marriage framework to encompass same-sex couples; the majority rejected the constitutional challenge. (¶¶ Chandrachud CJI: 186–208, Bhat J.: 71–107, 149(v))
- Section 4, Foreign Marriage Act, 1969Its gendered conditions and linked matrimonial framework could not be reconstructed by judicial interpretation to permit the requested same-sex marriages. (¶¶ Chandrachud CJI: 209–212, Bhat J.: 105–107)
- Section 57; Adoption Regulations, Regulation 5(3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015The majority construed joint adoption as confined to married couples and upheld the challenged stable-marital-relationship requirement, while seeking policy consideration of de facto families and children’s interests. (¶¶ Bhat J.: 120–135, 149(x), Narasimha J.: 4(h))
Held
- The Bench found no unqualified fundamental right to marry and declined to strike down or judicially reconstruct the marriage statutes to permit same-sex marriage. Kaul J. regarded the SMA exclusion as discriminatory but likewise declined that remedial course. (¶¶ Chandrachud CJI: 172–212, 340(g)–(h), Kaul J.: 12–18, Bhat J.: 45–50, 71–107, Narasimha J.: 4)
- By a 3–2 majority, Bhat and Kohli JJ., joined by Narasimha J., rejected a constitutional entitlement to legal recognition of a civil union or a court-directed framework conferring that status. Chandrachud CJI and Kaul J. favoured recognition and associated entitlements; their position did not command a majority. (¶¶ Bhat J.: 67–70, 149(i)–(iv), Narasimha J.: 3–4, 15–20, Chandrachud CJI: 340(i), Kaul J.: 11, 19–21)
- Queer persons retain the right to choose partners, cohabit and enjoy relationships, with State protection against violence, coercion and involuntary medical or surgical treatment. Refusal to create marital status did not diminish those protected freedoms. (¶¶ Bhat J.: 52, 63, 149(xi)–(xii), Narasimha J.: 4(b))
- Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships may marry under existing marriage laws, including personal laws, subject to their other conditions. (¶¶ Chandrachud CJI: 264–279, 340(m)–(n), Bhat J.: 119, 149(ix))
- By a 3–2 majority, the challenge to Regulation 5(3) failed. The majority stressed the existing legal protections surrounding joint adoption and called for consideration of children in de facto families; this was not a finding that queer persons were inherently unfit parents. The CJI’s contrary reading, broadly supported by Kaul J., was a minority view. (¶¶ Bhat J.: 120–135, 149(x), 157–158, Narasimha J.: 4(h), Chandrachud CJI: 288–318)
- The Union was directed, consistently with its assurance, to constitute a high-powered Cabinet Secretary-led committee to examine exclusions from earned benefits and welfare entitlements, with stakeholder and State/Union Territory consultation. The judgment did not itself confer the entire set of spousal benefits. (¶¶ Bhat J.: 108–118, 148–149(vii), Chandrachud CJI: 340(s))
Result
Petitions disposed of. Same-sex marriage and legally enforceable civil-union relief declined; joint-adoption challenge rejected by the majority. Protective directions and constitution of the Cabinet Secretary-led committee ordered, with policy and legislative choices left to the competent branches.