Introduction
India has made important progress in recognising the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals. In 2018, the Supreme Court decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships between adults. However, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage remains unresolved. Queer couples can choose their partners and live together, but they cannot currently register their relationships as marriages under Indian marriage laws.
The issue came before the Supreme Court in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023), where the Court examined whether same-sex couples had the right to marry under the Constitution and whether existing marriage laws could be interpreted to include them.
What Changed After the 2018 Supreme Court Judgment?
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to decriminalise consensual sexual relationships between adults of the same sex.
Before this judgment, Section 377 criminalised certain sexual acts, including consensual same-sex relations. The Court held that criminalising private, consensual relationships between adults violated constitutional protections, including equality, dignity, privacy and individual autonomy.
The judgment was an important step towards LGBTQIA+ rights in India. It recognised that individuals have the freedom to choose their relationships without facing criminal punishment merely because of their sexual orientation.
However, the judgment did not grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. Decriminalising a relationship and recognising it as a marriage are two different legal questions.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide in 2023?
In October 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023).
The petitioners challenged the exclusion of same-sex couples from the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They argued that the law’s gender-specific language prevented queer couples from accessing the legal recognition and benefits available to heterosexual married couples.
The Court unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution. It also declined to interpret the Special Marriage Act as permitting same-sex marriages.
All five judges agreed that the Court could not recognise a fundamental right to marry or extend the existing marriage law to queer couples through judicial interpretation.
The judges, however, differed on other questions, particularly the recognition of civil unions and adoption rights.
Why Did the Court Refuse to Legalise Same-Sex Marriage?
The majority opinion, delivered by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat on behalf of himself and Justice Hima Kohli, held that changing the legal definition of marriage and creating a framework for recognising queer unions involved legislative policy.
The Court observed that marriage is governed by several statutes dealing with different legal matters, including succession, adoption and family relationships. Recognising same-sex marriages would therefore require changes across multiple areas of law.
The majority held that the judiciary could not rewrite the Special Marriage Act or create a new legal framework for marriage through judicial interpretation. Such changes would require legislative action.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul expressed a different view on the recognition of queer unions. However, their opinions did not form the majority on this issue.
What Rights Do Queer Couples Have After the Judgment?
The judgment did not remove the constitutional protections available to LGBTQIA+ individuals. Queer persons continue to enjoy fundamental rights, including equality, dignity, privacy and the freedom to choose their partners.
The Court recognised that queer individuals have the right to enter into relationships and that the State must protect them from coercion, violence and discrimination.
However, the majority did not recognise a legally enforceable right to have a same-sex relationship registered as a civil union. It also did not grant same-sex couples the same legal status and benefits that automatically flow from marriage.
The judgment also discussed practical concerns faced by queer couples. These included access to joint bank accounts, partner nominations, ration cards, medical decision-making and visitation rights. The Court recorded the Union Government’s assurance that a committee would examine the entitlements available to queer couples and consider measures to address discrimination.
What About Adoption Rights?
The question of adoption was also considered in the judgment. The petitioners challenged the adoption regulations that prevented unmarried couples from jointly adopting children.
Chief Justice Chandrachud took the view that unmarried couples, including queer couples, could jointly adopt a child, subject to applicable safeguards. However, the majority disagreed with this interpretation.
As a result, the existing adoption framework was not changed to allow unmarried queer couples to jointly adopt children. Individual adoption remains subject to the applicable eligibility conditions and adoption regulations.
This distinction is important because the Court’s decision did not prohibit every LGBTQIA+ individual from adopting a child. It concerned the legal eligibility of unmarried couples to adopt jointly.
What Is the Current Legal Position in India?
As of November 2026, Indian law does not recognise same-sex marriage. The Special Marriage Act, 1954 and other marriage laws have not been amended to provide legal registration of same-sex marriages.
However, consensual same-sex relationships between adults are not criminal offences. Queer individuals have constitutional protection for their personal choices, relationships and dignity.
The 2023 judgment left the question of marriage equality largely within the legislative domain. Any change in the legal recognition of same-sex marriages would therefore require legislative reform.
Conclusion
The legal position in India reflects a distinction between the freedom to choose a partner and the legal recognition of marriage. The Supreme Court has protected the right of LGBTQIA+ individuals to live with dignity and make personal choices. However, it has not extended the institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples.
The 2018 judgment removed criminal punishment for consensual same-sex relationships, while the 2023 judgment declined to recognise same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation. The debate now concerns whether Parliament will introduce legal reforms to provide queer couples with equal recognition and protection under family law.
