Skip to main content

Supreme Court 'departs' from international law: Right to marry not a fundamental right?

By Kavita Srivastava, V Suresh* 

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) expresses its deep disappointment with respect to the verdict of the Supreme Court in `Supriyo v Union of India’ denying the right to marry to the LGBTQI community. While there were four opinions among the five judges, it is unfortunate that the bench was unanimous in declaring that there is no fundamental right to marriage. This is disturbing as the foundation of the claim for equal right to marriage is based on an understanding that the right to marry is a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court seems to have ignored that the founding document of international human law: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to marry and found a family. While the Supreme Court has on numerous occasions read provisions of international human rights law including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Article 21, its surprising that it balked when it came to the question of marriage equality.

Consensus that the Special Marriage Act cannot be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner

It is also disappointing that the Court unanimously rejected the petitioner’s plea to interpret the Special Marriage Act in a gender-neutral manner so as to include the right of same sex couples to marry. The Court cited the fear of tampering with this legislation because it was connected to a ‘spider-web’ of laws the complexity of which required a legislative intervention rather than a judicial fiat.
The majority opinion of Justices Ravindra Bhatt, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha clearly stating that this was a legislative domain into which they would not intrude as it was the responsibility and domain of the state which ‘can undertake wide scale public consultation, consensus building’ and then enact a law that reflects the ‘will of the people’.

Consensus on heterosexual transgender marriages

All five judges agreed with the proposition that a ‘transgender man has the right to marry a cisgender woman under the laws governing marriage in the country, including personal laws. Similarly, a transgender woman has the right to marry a cisgender man. A transgender man and a transgender woman can also marry. Intersex persons who identify as a man or a woman and seek to enter into a heterosexual marriage would also have a right to marry. Any other interpretation of the laws governing marriage would be contrary to Section 3 of the Transgender Persons Act and Article 15 of the Constitution’.
While this is to be welcomed, it has to be noted that the transgender community occupies a spectrum and not everyone transitions from one gender to another with many choosing to identify as non-binary and others choosing to express their gender without necessarily going in for a transition. Nonetheless, this is a step forward and will be of great assistance to a section of the transgender community in the time going ahead.
The minority judgement shows the way forward.

Minority opinion: The right to `intimate association’ a part of the `right to association’ in Article 19(1) (c), Article 21 and Article 25

If there is a sign of hope it was in the minority opinions of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Kaul when they read the right to `intimate association’ into the `right to association’ in Article 19(1) (c) as well as into Articles 21 and 25. They laid down that that the state was duty bound to grant rights to those in such intimate associations including labour law benefits, insurance benefits and other such ancillaries of a union or an intimate association.

Minority opinion: No prohibition to unmarried couples from adopting children

Further the two justices made the case that CARA guidelines which prohibited unmarried couples from adopting must be read down and the right of unmarried couples to adopt should be recognized.

Directives by the minority judgement: No discrimination and police harassment because of gender identity or sexual orientation’

It is also disappointing that the minority judgment’s laying down of numerous directives did not persuade the majority. The minority directed, interalia, that the ‘Union Government, State Governments, and Governments of Union Territories’ to ‘ensure that the queer community is not discriminated against because of their gender identity or sexual orientation’.
They also directed, inter-alia, the police machinery to ensure that ‘There shall be no harassment of queer couples by summoning them to the police station or visiting their places of residence solely to interrogate them about their gender identity or sexual orientation’.

Judgement creates no new rights, but not homophobic or stigmatising towards the LGBTQIE+ community

Even as we rue the passing of this missed opportunity to take forward the rights of the LGBTQI community, we are heartened by how much the ground has shifted from the open homophobia of yesteryears. This judgment unlike the re-criminalisation judgment in 2013 is at pains to avoid describing the community in stigmatizing terms. Even the judges who denied the right to intimate association go to great lengths to clarify, that the rights recognized under ‘Nalsa v Union of India’ (2014) and ‘Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India’ (2018) in here in LGBTQI persons.
As Justice Narasimha puts it, ‘I am not oblivious to the concerns of the LBTQ+ partners with respect to denial of access to certain benefits and privileges that are otherwise available only to married couples…I am of the firm belief that a review of the impact of legislative framework on the flow of such benefits requires a deliberative and consultative exercise, which exercise the legislature and executive are constitutionally suited and tasked to undertake’.

Fight back important to assert Constitutional morality over social morality

Undoubtedly the community will take forward the battle for marriage equality using legislative and parliamentary fora, streets as well as the courts. This fight back is important as this judgment is a setback to the wider human rights movement as well. There is a setback to the liberalization of social mores as well as a return to a more patriarchal social morality. The judgment is an implicit victory for conservative forces which privilege social morality over constitutional morality.
The justice of this cause, rooted as it is in the deepest constitutional morality, can’t be denied. Nobody expressed the hope of a new dawn better than a black American gay poet, Langston Hughes in his poem, ‘A dream deferred’.
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore --
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over --
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

We are confident that the dream of marriage equality will be realised soon.
---
*President, General Secretary, PUCL

Comments

TRENDING

Wave of disappearances sparks human rights fears for activists in Delhi

By Harsh Thakor*  A philosophy student from Zakir Hussain College, Delhi University, and an activist associated with Nazariya magazine, Rudra, has been reported missing since the morning of July 19, 2025. This disappearance adds to a growing concern among human rights advocates regarding the escalating number of detentions and disappearances of activists in Delhi.

How community leaders overcome obstacles to protect forests and pastures in remote villages

By Bharat Dogra  Dheera Ram Kapaya grew up in such poverty that, unable to attend school himself, he would carry another boy’s heavy school bag for five kilometers just to get a scoop of daliya (porridge). When he was finally able to attend school, he had to leave after class five to join other adolescent workers. However, as soon as opportunities arose, he involved himself in community efforts—promoting forest protection, adult literacy, and other constructive initiatives. His hidden talent for writing emerged during this time, and he became known for the songs and street play scripts he created to promote forest conservation, discourage child marriages, and support other social reforms.

‘Act of war on agriculture’: Aruna Rodrigues slams GM crop expansion and regulatory apathy

By Rosamma Thomas*  Expressing appreciation to the Union Agriculture Minister for inviting suggestions from farmers and concerned citizens on the sharp decline in cotton crop productivity, Aruna Rodrigues—lead petitioner in the Supreme Court case ongoing since 2005 that seeks a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops—wrote to Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on July 14, 2025, stating that conflicts of interest have infiltrated India’s regulatory system like a spreading cancer, including within the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR).

The GMO illusion: Three decades of hype, harm, and false hope

By Sridhar Radhakrishnan  Three decades of hype, billions of dollars spent, and still no miracle crop. It's time to abandon the GMO biotech fairy tale and return to the soil, the seed, and the farmer. “Trust us,” they said. “GMOs will feed the world.” Picture a world where there is plenty of food, no hunger, fields grow without chemical pesticides, children are saved from malnutrition, and people live healthily.

Sandra Gonzalez Sanabria: An inspiring life from Colombia’s Amazonian valley

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  In the village of Héctor Ramírez, known as Agua Bonita, in La Montañita, Caquetá, Colombia, a vision of peace and renewal is unfolding. In the pre-2016 period, this would have been nearly impossible for outsiders to visit, as it was the epicenter of violent resistance against state oppression. However, after the Peace Accord was signed between the Colombian government and former revolutionaries—marking the end of a 70-year insurgency that claimed over 400,000 lives until 2025, including civilians, rebel fighters, and security personnel—things began to change. Visiting Agua Bonita during the Global Land Forum in Bogotá revealed a village of hope and resilience. Former FARC revolutionaries have settled here and transformed the village into a center of peace and aspiration.

Overriding India's constitutional sovereignty? Citizens urge PM to reject WHO IHR amendments

By A Representative   A group of concerned Indian citizens, including medical professionals and activists, has sent an urgent appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him to reject proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) before the ratification deadline of July 19, 2025. 

Indigenous Karen activist calls for global solidarity amid continued struggles in Burma

By A Representative   At the International Festival for People’s Rights and Struggles (IFPRS), Naw Paw Pree, an Indigenous Karen activist from the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG), shared her experiences of oppression, resilience, and hope. Organized with the support of the International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), the event brought together Indigenous and marginalized communities from across the globe, offering a rare safe space for shared learning, solidarity, and expression.

Activists allege abduction and torture by Delhi Police Special Cell in missing person probe

By A Representative   A press statement released today by the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR) alleges that several student and social activists have been abducted, illegally detained, and subjected to torture by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The CASR claims these actions are linked to an investigation into the disappearance of Vallika Varshri, an editorial team member of 'Nazariya' magazine.

India’s zero-emission, eco-friendly energy strategies have a long way to go, despite impressive progress

By N.S. Venkataraman*   The recent report released by OPEC’s World Oil Outlook 2025 has predicted that by the year 2050, crude oil would replace coal as India’s key energy source. Clearly, OPEC expects that India’s dependence on fossil fuels for energy will continue to remain high in one form or another.