Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India: the marriage-equality reference and its judicial limits

The constitutional engagement with marriage equality for queer persons had developed across the post-Navtej Singh Johar (2018) period. The decriminalisation of consensual same-sex conduct, together with the Puttaswamy (2017) framework on privacy and the NALSA (2014) framework on identity, had produced a doctrinal architecture that substantively recognised the constitutional protection of LGBTQ identity and expression. The substantive question that had remained — substantively engaged by Navtej J. Chandrachud's separate opinion as part of the future doctrinal trajectory — was whether the constitutional framework also supported substantive recognition of LGBTQ relationships through the marriage architecture.

The petitions that produced Supriyo engaged this substantive question directly. The first petition was filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang; the second by Parth Phiroze Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand. The substantive challenge engaged §Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 — which provides for marriage between a "male" and a "female" — and asked the Court to declare the provision unconstitutional or to read it down to extend the substantive marriage architecture to same-sex couples.

The five-judge Constitution Bench — Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha JJ. — heard the matter across ten days of substantive hearings between 18 April and 11 May 2023. On 17 October 2023, the Bench delivered judgment. The case is reported at 2023 INSC 920.

The substantive question

The petitions had engaged the substantive question through several connected propositions:

• The substantive recognition of marriage equality as a fundamental right under the constitutional framework, drawing on the Puttaswamy / Navtej doctrinal architecture.
• The substantive reading down of Section 4(c) SMA to extend the framework's architecture to same-sex couples.
• The substantive engagement with associated rights — including adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits, succession and inheritance — that depend on the substantive marriage recognition.
• The substantive engagement with state recognition of relationships, even if not through the marriage framework.

The substantive doctrinal premises engaged the post-Puttaswamy / Navtej framework: dignity, equality, autonomy, the constitutional protection of LGBTQ identity. The substantive concern: whether the framework's doctrinal architecture supported the specific substantive outcomes the petitioners sought.

The holding

The reasoning across the four opinions

The Bench produced four substantive opinions across its five judges. The substantive engagement with the doctrinal questions deserves close attention because the disposition's doctrinal architecture is best understood through the cumulative engagement.

Chief Justice Chandrachud's opinion

The Chief Justice's opinion engaged the substantive doctrinal architecture extensively. The substantive contributions:

• The substantive recognition of the constitutional protection of LGBTQ identity — drawing on the NALSA / Puttaswamy / Navtej line and articulating the substantive doctrinal premises.
• The substantive concern about discrimination — articulating the substantive constitutional concerns about the SMA's heteronormative framework and its consequences for LGBTQ persons.
• The civil-union framework — substantively articulating that the constitutional framework supports substantive recognition of LGBTQ relationships short of marriage, through a civil-union architecture.
• The substantive direction to the State — articulating substantive directions for State engagement with the structural concerns the framework's heteronormative architecture produces.

The Chief Justice's opinion was, in substantive terms, the most expansive engagement with the constitutional protection of LGBTQ relationships. The substantive opinion was substantively cited and engaged across subsequent doctrinal discussion.

Justice Kaul's opinion

Justice Kaul's opinion substantially agreed with the Chief Justice on the substantive constitutional questions. The substantive contributions:

• Agreement on the substantive constitutional architecture for LGBTQ rights and the doctrinal foundation in the post-Puttaswamy / Navtej line.
• Agreement on the substantive concern about discrimination in the existing framework.
• Agreement on the civil-union framework as a substantive doctrinal articulation.
• Substantive supplementary contributions on the institutional dimensions of LGBTQ relationship recognition.

Justice Bhat's opinion (for himself and Justices Kohli and Narasimha)

Justice Bhat's opinion, delivered for the three-judge majority on the civil-union question, engaged the substantive questions through a substantively different doctrinal posture. The substantive contributions:

• Agreement on the substantive constitutional protection of LGBTQ identity through the existing doctrinal architecture.
• Substantive distinction between identity recognition and relationship recognition — articulating that the constitutional framework supports the former without necessarily supporting the latter at the substantive level the petitioners sought.
• Substantive concern about judicial overreach — articulating that the substantive question of marriage equality, and even of civil-union architecture, engages substantive policy and legislative questions that the Court should not preempt through doctrinal articulation.
• The institutional architecture for State engagement with LGBTQ relationship recognition — articulating that this engagement is appropriately conducted through Parliament and the executive, not through judicial articulation.

Justice Narasimha's opinion

Justice Narasimha's opinion substantially agreed with Justice Bhat's substantive analytical posture, while contributing supplementary doctrinal engagement on the specific questions.

The doctrinal architecture the disposition produces

The cumulative architecture has several substantive features.

The unanimous foundation

All five judges agreed on substantive foundational propositions:

• The constitutional framework does not contain a fundamental right to marry as such.
• The SMA cannot be read down to extend the substantive marriage architecture to same-sex couples through judicial interpretation.
• The substantive question of marriage equality is, doctrinally, a matter for Parliament.

The substantive division on civil-union

The 2:3 division on the civil-union question reflects substantive doctrinal disagreement about how far the constitutional framework supports judicial articulation of LGBTQ relationship recognition. The substantive disagreement is doctrinally important: it engages the broader question of judicial competence in articulating substantive remedies for constitutional concerns.

The substantive consequence: the disposition does not produce judicial articulation of substantive civil-union architecture for LGBTQ couples. The substantive question is left with Parliament and the executive.

The institutional engagement

The disposition engaged substantively with the institutional dimensions of LGBTQ recognition. Various substantive directions emerged — including engagement with the Central government on specific institutional questions — that operate within the broader institutional architecture for LGBTQ rights.

The constitutional framework protects the identity and dignity of LGBTQ persons. Whether the substantive recognition extends to marriage equality is a substantive doctrinal question that engages both judicial and institutional considerations.

The substantive engagement after Supriyo

The post-Supriyo engagement with marriage equality has continued across multiple dimensions.

Review petitions

Review petitions challenging the Supriyo disposition have been substantively filed. The substantive engagement engages whether the disposition's substantive reasoning satisfies the constitutional architecture and whether substantive doctrinal modification is appropriate.

Subsequent dispositions

Subsequent dispositions engaging LGBTQ rights have substantively operated within the Supriyo doctrinal architecture. The substantive engagement with specific dimensions — adoption, surrogacy, succession, employment-related questions — continues through subsequent dispositions.

Legislative engagement

The substantive question of legislative engagement with marriage equality and civil-union architecture continues across the political process. The substantive direction remains substantively contested.

What practitioners take from the disposition

For practitioners engaged with LGBTQ rights and family-law matters in 2026, the substantive architecture engages:

For LGBTQ clients

The substantive recognition of LGBTQ identity under NALSA / Navtej / Puttaswamy continues to operate. The substantive limitation on marriage equality — and on judicial articulation of civil-union architecture — produces substantive constraints on certain substantive dimensions of relationship recognition. The substantive engagement with specific dimensions — employment, succession, adoption — operates through the broader doctrinal architecture.

For family-law practice

The framework's substantive architecture for marriage continues to operate. The substantive doctrinal architecture for marriage equality engages the SMA, the various personal-law frameworks, and the broader constitutional architecture. The substantive question of LGBTQ relationship recognition operates within this broader framework.

For constitutional engagement

The substantive constitutional questions about identity, dignity and equality continue to engage substantive doctrinal development. The Supriyo disposition is part of the broader doctrinal trajectory — substantively contested, substantively engaged, substantively evolving.

What the disposition did not foreclose

It is worth being precise about the boundary.

• The disposition addressed the substantive constitutional question of marriage equality. It did not foreclose substantive engagement with other dimensions of LGBTQ rights — including substantive recognition under various statutory frameworks.
• The disposition did not foreclose Parliamentary engagement with the substantive question. The substantive direction is that the question is appropriately engaged through legislative process.
• The disposition did not engage substantively with the substantive question of how civil-union or relationship-recognition frameworks should operate. The substantive question remains substantively open for legislative and institutional engagement.

The bottom line

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India is the constitutional engagement with marriage equality for queer persons. The substantive holding — that the constitutional framework does not contain a fundamental right to marry, that the SMA cannot be read down to extend its substantive architecture to same-sex couples, and that the question is appropriately engaged through Parliament rather than through judicial doctrine — has produced a substantive doctrinal architecture that continues to engage substantive doctrinal discussion. The 3:2 split on the civil-union question reflects substantive doctrinal disagreement; the substantive direction is that judicial articulation of substantive relationship-recognition architecture is constrained. For practitioners engaged with LGBTQ rights, the framework's substantive architecture engages the broader NALSA / Puttaswamy / Navtej line; the substantive direction continues to evolve through legislative and doctrinal engagement.

---

Verify against the reported judgment. The doctrinal framework continues to engage substantive doctrinal development; track subsequent dispositions and legislative developments for substantive direction.