The question of same-sex marriage in India has become one of the most significant legal and social debates of recent times. With the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights by the Supreme Court, particularly through the decriminalization of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the demand for legal recognition of same-sex marriages has gained momentum. While consensual same-sex relationships are no longer criminal, the law in India does not yet recognize marriage between same-sex partners. This absence of recognition creates a gap between the constitutional promise of equality and the lived realities of LGBTQ+ individuals who continue to be denied matrimonial rights such as adoption, inheritance, succession, maintenance, and medical decision-making for their partners.
The legal framework governing marriage in India is primarily structured through personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, and the Muslim personal law system, none of which explicitly permit same-sex marriage. Additionally, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which provides a secular framework for interfaith marriages, uses gendered terms like “male” and “female,” effectively excluding same-sex couples. In the absence of legislative reform, courts have been approached to expand the definition of marriage to include LGBTQ+ persons.
The issue came before the Supreme Court in Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023), where petitioners argued that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. They contended that the Constitution guarantees equality, dignity, and liberty, and that exclusion from marriage perpetuates discrimination. The Union government opposed the petitions, arguing that marriage is a socio-legal institution deeply rooted in religion and culture, and that any change should come through Parliament rather than judicial intervention. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, declined to recognize a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples, holding that the matter falls within the domain of the legislature. However, the Court acknowledged the rights of queer couples to cohabit without discrimination and directed governments to take steps against harassment of LGBTQ+ persons. This outcome has kept the legal validity of same-sex marriages unresolved, highlighting the limitations of judicial activism in areas requiring legislative consensus.
The social debate around same-sex marriage is equally contentious. Supporters argue that marriage is not merely a religious or cultural institution but a civil right, and denying it to same-sex couples amounts to treating them as second-class citizens. They point to constitutional morality, which demands that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by prevailing social prejudices. Critics, however, emphasize that Indian society is not yet ready to accept same-sex marriage, citing religious doctrines, cultural norms, and the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between a man and a woman oriented toward procreation. This clash between constitutional values of equality and liberty on one side, and social morality and tradition on the other, defines the ongoing debate.
Globally, same-sex marriage has gained recognition in several democracies, including the United States, Canada, and many European nations, where courts or legislatures have affirmed that marriage equality is essential to human dignity. The contrast with India underscores the evolving nature of human rights law and the pace of social acceptance. While India has made significant progress by decriminalizing homosexuality and recognizing the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ persons, marriage equality remains the next frontier.
In conclusion, same-sex marriage in India stands at the intersection of constitutional law, social reform, and cultural tradition. Legally, the absence of recognition denies LGBTQ+ individuals the full enjoyment of rights available to heterosexual couples. Socially, the debate reflects a clash between progressive values of equality and entrenched notions of tradition. The judiciary has acknowledged the rights of queer couples but deferred the issue of marriage to Parliament. The future of same-sex marriage in India depends on the ability of lawmakers to reconcile constitutional morality with societal attitudes, ensuring that dignity and equality are not denied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.
