Supriya Chakraborty Cases – Section 377, Queer Rights, Privacy, Dignity & Marriage Equality in India
Case Summary
In the case of Navtej Singh Johar and Others vs. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4321), the Supreme Court of India declared Section 377 unconstitutional concerning consensual relationships among queer individuals.
The Court recognized that
Section 377 infringed upon Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution, as it constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation and violated the principle of sexual privacy. Following this landmark decision, numerous petitions were filed that asserted the need for a comprehensive range of constitutional rights that should apply to the queer community, encompassing the autonomy to choose one’s partner and the right to sexual privacy and dignity.
In the aftermath of this ruling, several petitioners submitted motions to various High Courts across the country, seeking the acknowledgment of marriage rights for LGBTQIA+ couples. The petitions maintained that the failure to recognize such marriages constituted discrimination and was, therefore, a violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
The petitioners contended that the formal recognition of the right to marry would enable the LGBTQIA+ community to exercise their rights to freedom of speech, expression, privacy, autonomy, and dignity. Additionally, some petitioners sought equal recognition to achieve societal validation and to access the explicit and implicit benefits associated with legally recognized marriages under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) and the Family Marriage Act (FMA). Collectively, the petitioners argued that the existing legal framework discriminated against the LGBTQIA+ community by denying them access to a civic institution available to heterosexual couples.
Background & Bench
The primary issue examined in this case was whether the “right to marry” should be regarded as a fundamental right extending to non-heterosexual couples. The Court took suo moto cognizance of the cases to highlight the discrimination and violence that the LGBTQIA+ community endures in India.
The Court recognized that, despite the decriminalization of LGBTQIA+ sexual relationships, these individuals continued to face discrimination and violence. Given the significance of the matters at hand, the case was heard by a Five-Judge Constitution bench.
Issue
Does the denial of a fundamental right to marry for queer couples constitute a violation of their rights to privacy and dignity?
Decision
The Five-Judge bench unanimously determined that the right to marriage is not a fundamental right, distinguishing between the right to choose a partner and the right to marry.
The Court relied on prior jurisprudence, emphasizing that while the right to choose a partner is indeed fundamental, only the State possesses the authority to legislate the recognition of marriage for queer couples. Although the bench acknowledged the right of queer couples to enter into unions, the majority opinion concluded that the State retains no obligation to recognize such civil unions legally.
The Court discussed the concept of marriage, its societal implications, and the benefits it entails, concluding that these benefits stem from State recognition rather than from the intrinsic nature of marriage. Thus, for queer couples to receive equivalent benefits, they would require formal recognition from the State, which can only be achieved through legislative action.
The Court asserted that the non-recognition of LGBTQIA+ unions does not obstruct an individual’s ability to exercise their rights to privacy, choice, and autonomy under Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the bodily integrity and personal autonomy of LGBTQIA+ individuals, enabling them to make choices concerning their relationships and personal lives.
While it acknowledged the legitimacy of queerness and the discrimination faced by the queer community, the majority judgment did not extend rights related to privacy, autonomy, and dignity to grant civil union status for LGBTQIA+ unions.
Constitutional Analysis of SMA & FMA
In evaluating the constitutional validity of the SMA and FMA, the Court recognized that transgender and intersex individuals in heterosexual relationships are permitted to marry under these laws. It articulated that various facets of marital relationships reflect constitutional values such as human dignity and personal liberty.
Therefore, every individual is entitled to sexual privacy and freedom from coercion by families, State agencies, and other parties. The Court reaffirmed that all individuals have the right to express and self-determine their sexual orientation and gender identity free from discrimination or harm, thus upholding the constitutional validity of these provisions.
Majority & Dissent
Majority (3:2)
The Court concluded that a holistic interpretation of Articles 19, 21, and 25 does not impose a positive obligation on the State to recognize civil unions comparable to marriage. The majority reiterated the right to choose, cohabit, and engage in intimate relationships without obligating the State to recognize LGBTQIA+ unions or democratize private spaces.
Dissent
The dissenting opinion argued that the State has a positive obligation to democratize the private sphere and that, in certain cases, it must override privacy rights to mitigate discrimination against queer individuals. The minority opinion maintained that the right to form civil unions is inherent in Articles 19 and 21, which guarantee the right to life and freedom of expression, and that the principles of equality in Articles 14 and 15 necessitate extending this right to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.
International Context — United States
Marriage Equality becomes a reality in the United States.
In the United States, marriage equality was established when the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015 through the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. This decision identified marriage as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
The court’s ruling was grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing that the right to marry applies to everyone, irrespective of gender. Justice Kennedy stated that this fundamental right should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples. In a 5-4 verdict, the court made marriage equality the law across the country, ensuring that same-sex couples receive full and equal legal recognition. Furthermore, public attitudes in the United States have evolved significantly, with increasing support for same-sex marriage evident in recent years.
Analysis
The court’s decision to reject the recognition of marriage for same-sex couples reaffirmed the rights of LGBT individuals to live with dignity and engage in relationships, highlighting that constitutional principles of equality and privacy already safeguard these rights. In the case of Shafin Jahan v. KM Ashokan, the court supported the right to choose one’s life partner under Article 21, but it left the issue of marriage as a fundamental right unresolved.
Consequently, the court stated that the Constitution does not specifically recognize marriage as a fundamental right, yet it honours an individual’s choice in selecting a marriage partner.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage encompasses both legal and social complexities. From a legal perspective, marriage cannot be deemed a fundamental right, and it falls outside the court’s authority; this responsibility rests with the lawmakers. Socially, the verdict reflects the existing norms and values in India, which may not yet be prepared to embrace same-sex marriage, considering it contrary to natural law. The primary obstacle for same-sex marriage remains societal acceptance.
India v. United States (Comparative Note)
The United States has a solid history of the Supreme Court affirming marriage equality. On the other hand, India’s parliamentary system assigns the responsibility of enacting laws to the legislature, and the country tends to have more conservative perspectives on social matters than the United States.
