‘It meant thinking about leaving the country for us,’ said Mabel, a resident of Delhi, answering what implications the marriage equality judgment of 2023 had for her. ‘My partner shifted to Ireland last year, and I am looking for jobs to join her there as the country provides me with those basic rights [to marry and cohabit],’ she added.
Hope was lost, and tears were shed by many when, on October 17, 2023, the Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to marry in India. Marriage in India is deeply rooted in cultural traditions. But beyond the rituals, marriage provides critical legal entitlements; protections and financial benefits, such as joint insurance policies; and inheritance rights and tax benefits which are not available to unmarried couples.
The court also held that it lacks the power to redefine the terms ‘marriage’ or ‘spouse’, as given in the Act, because that falls within the legislature’s domain.
In a 3:2 verdict, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India refused to interpret the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as gender neutral and upheld the Central Adoption Resource Authority’s (CARA) circular, which restricts adoption by unmarried couples. The court also held that it lacks the power to redefine the terms ‘marriage’ or ‘spouse’, as given in the Act, because that falls within the legislature’s domain.
‘The judgment was very confusing,’ said Sonal Giani, a queer activist and actor. She noted how the bench was divided, and though in the beginning it seemed that the judges were in favour of the petitioners, Sonal adds, ‘It became exhausting listening to the judges talk for three to four hours just to realise that this is not a positive judgement.‘
The bench directed the formation of a high-powered committee under the Union Cabinet Secretary and tasked it with examining how specific rights could be extended to queer couples. These include treating queer partners as part of the same ‘family’ for the purpose of obtaining ration cards; allowing opening of joint bank accounts with the partner as a nominee; recognising partners as ‘next of kin’ for terminally ill patients; granting access to the body for performing last rites; providing jail visitation rights similar to married couples; ensuring eligibility for pension and gratuity; insurance coverage; and addressing succession and inheritance rights.
The right to marry
‘After the judgement, the first thought was that maybe we will have to wait for another decade. We had to rethink our entire strategy. We opened joint accounts, and I started applying for jobs in countries like Australia,’ shared Mabel.
Contending that not being allowed to marry violated their right to equality, the lead petitioners in the case were Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, who had held a commitment ceremony in 2021.
Contending that not being allowed to marry violated their right to equality, the lead petitioners in the case were Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, who had held a commitment ceremony in 2021. While they were the lead petitioners, the case comprised 20 petitions involving 52 individuals and 17 queer couples that were clubbed and heard together.
‘The movement was led by those who wanted the right to marry, not just to have a family unit but also to have access to assets, wills, and healthcare,’ said Krish*, a resident of Chandigarh. Beyond demanding an equal and stigma-free recognition of queer relationships in the eyes of society, the petitioners demanded key legal rights and recognition. From financial benefits to parental rights to adopt, they argued that the denial of these rights led to their treatment as ‘second-class’ citizens and violated the fundamental rights enshrined under articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
The positive takeaway from the judgment, for Krish, was that the Supreme Court acknowledged that the government should allow queer couples access to services that married heterosexual couples already have.
The positive takeaway from the judgment, for Krish, was that the Supreme Court acknowledged that the government should allow queer couples access to services that married heterosexual couples already have. However, overall, she found the judgment very disappointing. Meanwhile, Sonal remarked, ‘You felt they recognised your rights, but they didn’t.’
The aftermath of the judgment
Sonal stated that people who have identified as queer publicly will ‘not go back into the closet’. ‘Earlier, when people were in the closet, nobody held the state accountable. But we are also citizens of India, and as taxpaying citizens, we want equal rights,’ she added.
The Union government notified the formation of a high-powered committee two years ago, on April 16, 2024. Through several government advisories the actions taken include the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) notifying that there is no restriction on queer partners opening joint bank accounts, the government issuing directives to treat queer couples as part of the same ‘family’ for ration cards, the Ministry of Home Affairs issuing an advisory to all states granting equal prison visitation rights to queer couples as married heterosexual couples, and directives being issued to allow queer individuals to claim their partner’s body to perform last rites.
Following an August 28, 2024, advisory by the Department of Financial Services that clarified that there were no legal restrictions on queer couples to nominate their partners as beneficiaries in their bank accounts, Mabel and her partner approached the bank. However, they could not nominate each other as only family members were allowed to be nominated.
Later, in October 2024, Mabel saw a post on X (formerly Twitter) by the government about the RBI’s clarification and visited her bank the very next day. But everyone in the bank was unaware of it. However, following her insistence, the process for a joint bank account was initiated, and there have been no issues since.
Departments and authorities lack a standard to identify queer couples who should receive entitlements, and without recognised proof of association, advisories and notifications will be ineffective in practice.
Despite these actions, many challenges remain. For one, queer couples require a recognised mechanism to prove that they are in a partnership. Further, departments and authorities lack a standard to identify queer couples who should receive entitlements, and without recognised proof of association, advisories and notifications will be ineffective in practice.
Sonal, for instance, mentioned how she was not able to open a joint bank account with her partner because the employees were unaware of the judgment or the directives. She said, ‘We are not going to educate them and face homophobia. It does not make sense for me to out myself without any clear indication from their end that they would be friendly.’
India’s high courts take the lead
Formally recognising the concept of ‘chosen family’ for queer couples in India, the Madras High Court held, ‘Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family.’ The ruling arose from a petition filed by a woman whose same-sex partner was forcibly detained and abused by her natal family. The court ordered her immediate release and emphasised an adult’s right to choose their life partner over parental desires. The court also directed the police to protect the couple from future harassment. Other such cases are ongoing in various courts across the country.
In August 2025, the Bombay High Court admitted a petition by a same-sex couple, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Their petition was based on the fact that gifts exchanged by heterosexual spouses are exempted from taxation, but this exemption isn’t afforded to queer couples. The judgment is pending, and the government has opposed it, maintaining that only the legislature has the power to recognise civil unions. A similar case was filed in the Karnataka High Court in October, 2025, and the judgment remains pending.
Regarding the future of the marriage equality struggle, Mabel said, ‘The judgment leaves room for hope and scope, but at the same time, there is also uncertainty and fear. It is a waiting game.‘
Sonal notes how many queer couples are performing wedding ceremonies, even though it is not legally recognised. She also mentioned instances of co-parenting by queer couples, because according to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, single women can adopt in India. ‘One day these children will grow up and demand legal recognition for their parents,‘ she added.
Regarding the future of the marriage equality struggle, Mabel said, ‘The judgment leaves room for hope and scope, but at the same time, there is also uncertainty and fear. It is a waiting game.‘
Some quotes in this article have been edited for clarity and length.
*The names of some individuals have been changed to protect their privacy.
About the author(s)
Second year student of Media Studies at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), BRC, Bangalore. A trained Kathak dancer, theatre artist and political nerd.
