Back

Supriyo v. Union of India

Supriyo v. Union of India
CourtSupreme Court of India
Full case nameSupriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases.
Started25 November 2022[1]
Decided17 October 2023 [2]
CitationsW.P.(C) No. 1011/2022
Diary No. 36593/2022
Case history
Prior actionsThe Court transferred to itself nine ongoing cases from High Courts: one from Kerala and eight from Delhi.[3]
Court membership
Judges sittingCJI D.Y. Chandrachud, J. S.K. Kaul, J. Ravindra Bhat, J. Hima Kohli & J. P.S. Narasimha
Case opinions
The right to marry is a statutory right, not a constitutional right. Therefore, only Parliament can recognize the marriage between non-heterosexual couples. Transgender individuals in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing marriage laws, including all personal (religious) laws.
Decision byRavindra Bhat, J. Hima Kohli & J. P.S. Narasimha
Keywords
Right to Family Life, Marriage Equality, Adoption Rights, Parenthood

Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases (2023) are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India.[4] A five-judge Constitution Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha, heard 20 connected cases brought by 52 petitioners.[5]

The petitioners, couples and individuals from sexual and gender minority communities, request recognition of the right to marry and establish a family based on protections from discrimination, the right to equality, dignity, personal liberty, privacy, and personal autonomy, and freedom of conscience and expression.[6] Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, a statutory body of the Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi Government, intervened to support extending the right to marry and adopt for sexual and gender minority individuals.[7]

The respondent, the Union Government under the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership and its statutory body National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, opposes extending the right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India, due to societal, cultural and religious history, consistent legislative policy, popular morality and majoritarian views.[8][9][10] The State Governments of Assam, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the State Government of Rajasthan led by the Indian National Congress, and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh led by the YSR Congress Party, intervened to oppose the right.[11][12]

Hindu organizations like Shri Sanatam Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha and Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, Islamic organizations like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Telangana Markazi Shia Ulema Council, the women empowerment organization Bharatiya Stree Shakti, and the educational nonprofit organization Kanchan Foundation, intervened to oppose the right.[13][14][15]

As the opponents raised concerns over the well-being of children in same-sex families, independent professional association, the Indian Psychiatric Society, supported marriage and adoption rights for sexual and gender minority individuals based on scientific evidence.[16][17][18]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-10-18. Retrieved 2023-10-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference :11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Supreme Court Order: W.P.(C) No. 1011/2022 (13 Mar 2023)
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference allp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Sharma, Padmakshi (6 April 2023). "DCPCR Supports Marriage Equality Petitions In Supreme Court; Says Govt Should Create Awareness That Same Sex Marriages Are Normal". www.livelaw.in. Archived from the original on 6 April 2023.
  8. ^ Mahajan, Shruti (12 March 2023). "India Government Opposes Same-Sex Marriage in Landmark Hearing". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2023-03-12.
  9. ^ Respondent: Union of India (12 March 2023)
  10. ^ Intervenor: National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (13 April 2023)
  11. ^ Kakkar, Shruti (17 April 2023). "Pleas seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage reflect 'urban elitist' views: Centre to SC". The New Indian Express. Archived from the original on 18 October 2023.
  12. ^ ANI (10 May 2023). "Assam, Andhra and Rajasthan opposed legalising same-sex marriage: Centre tells SC". The Print. Archived from the original on 10 May 2023.
  13. ^ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (17 April 2023). "The various petitions around same sex marriage". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 3 May 2023.
  14. ^ Sharma, Padmakshi (1 April 2023). "'Assault on family system': Jamiat moves plea in SC opposing same-sex marriage". www.livelaw.in. Archived from the original on 2 April 2023.
  15. ^ "Rajasthan, Assam and Andhra oppose plea on same-sex marriage". The Indian Express. 2023-05-11. Archived from the original on 2023-10-16. Retrieved 2023-10-13.
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference :6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ "Psychiatrists back LGBTQA marriage & adoption rights". The Times of India. 10 April 2023. ISSN 0971-8257. Archived from the original on 10 April 2023.
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search