Supriyo v Union of India
Rule established
The Special Marriage Act as presently enacted is confined to marriages between a male and a female; legal recognition of same-sex marriages requires legislative action and cannot be read into the SMA by judicial interpretation.
Facts
- Several petitions by same-sex couples sought a declaration that the SMA be read to include same-sex marriages, or alternatively that the Court direct recognition of such unions.
Issue
- Whether the SMA can be interpreted to encompass same-sex marriages, or whether the Court should direct their recognition.
Held
- The Court declined to read the SMA as encompassing same-sex marriages. The right to marry a person of choice is a facet of Art.21, but the SMA's specific framework is legislatively designed for male-female unions. Extension requires legislative action. The Court recognised queer unions as having certain entitlements (e.g., joint bank accounts, nomination) but stopped short of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi
(1) The SMA's text and legislative intent confine it to heterosexual marriages. (2) Judicial interpretation cannot rewrite a legislative scheme. (3) Certain rights of queer couples are recognisable without altering the marriage framework.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite to confirm the present scope of the SMA
- Relevant to questions on the limits of judicial interpretation vs legislative action
- The thirty day notice provision was criticised in the judgment but not struck down
Source
Source: 2023 INSC 920
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.