In October 2023, India’s Supreme Court delivered one of its most closely watched recent rulings, deciding whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. This article explains what the court actually decided, what it left open, and what has happened since.
The Verdict Itself
A five-judge Constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, ruled on October 17, 2023, in Supriyo v. Union of India, with a 3-2 majority finding there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution and consequently declining to extend legal recognition to same-sex marriage, according to Wikipedia’s detailed summary of the judgment. The ruling meant the court would not itself create a new category of legally recognised same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation, leaving that decision, the majority held, to Parliament rather than the judiciary.
What the Court Unanimously Directed Instead
Despite the split on the core marriage question, the bench was unanimous on a secondary but still significant point: it directed the Union government to constitute a committee specifically tasked with examining what rights and entitlements, joint bank accounts, insurance nomination rights, and similar practical benefits among them, could be extended to same-sex couples without formally granting them marriage status, a narrower remedy that fell well short of what petitioners had sought but represented a concrete, court-ordered obligation on the government to at least examine the practical dimension of the issue.
Also read: CAA in the Courts: The Legal Debate Around the Citizenship Amendment Act
The Government’s Delayed Response
The government’s response to this directive took considerably longer than campaigners had hoped. According to the Washington Blade’s coverage, the promised committee, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, was only formally constituted in May 2024, roughly seven months after the October 2023 verdict, a delay that LGBTQ+ rights advocates specifically criticised as reflecting a lack of urgency in addressing even the narrower remedy the court had unanimously ordered.
What Has Actually Changed Since
Some concrete, if limited, administrative changes have followed. According to coverage by Outlook India and WION, the Finance Ministry subsequently allowed LGBTQ+ individuals to open joint bank accounts and name same-sex partners as nominees on financial accounts, a practical benefit falling within the scope the Supreme Court had specifically identified. The Social Justice Ministry separately sought public input on broader LGBTQI+ policy questions in September 2024, according to National Herald’s coverage. However, according to Global Governance News’s reporting, the Cabinet Secretary-led committee’s full report has remained unpublished as of the most recent tracking, drawing continued criticism from advocacy groups that the response so far amounts to piecemeal administrative adjustments rather than any comprehensive legal framework addressing the fuller set of rights same-sex couples had originally sought recognition for.
The Review Petitions
Petitioners who sought to have the original verdict reconsidered pursued review petitions, which the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed, according to coverage by LiveLaw, with the reviewing bench finding no error apparent on the face of the original record, a legal standard that makes review petitions difficult to succeed on even when petitioners believe the original reasoning was flawed. Tribune India’s coverage separately noted the review hearing had been delayed at one point after Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from the matter, adding further procedural delay to an already lengthy process.
Read this next: The National Judicial Appointments Commission: Why the Supreme Court Struck It Down
Where LGBTQ+ Rights Advocacy Stands Now
With the review petitions dismissed and the government-ordered committee’s work still not fully public, LGBTQ+ rights groups have continued characterising the overall outcome as inadequate, since no legal pathway toward marriage or even a formal civil union status currently exists following the 2023 verdict, leaving same-sex couples in India dependent entirely on incremental administrative changes, like the banking reforms noted above, rather than any comprehensive, marriage-equivalent legal recognition, a state of affairs advocacy groups argue leaves the practical rights gap the Supreme Court itself unanimously acknowledged only partially addressed nearly three years after the original ruling.
Why the Distinction Between Rights and Marriage Status Matters
The gap between the practical rights the government committee has begun addressing and the formal marriage recognition the original petitioners sought is not a minor technicality: marriage status in Indian law carries automatic legal consequences across inheritance, adoption, medical decision-making authority, and immigration sponsorship that piecemeal administrative reforms, however genuinely useful individually, cannot fully replicate without a comprehensive legal framework, meaning same-sex couples in India continue navigating a patchwork of individually negotiated rights rather than the single, automatic legal status marriage provides different-sex couples.
If you like this, you must read: Judiciary and Institutions Under Modi: Before 2014 vs After 2014
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s October 2023 verdict declined to recognise a constitutional right to same-sex marriage but unanimously ordered the government to examine practical rights and entitlements for same-sex couples, a directive the government took seven months to act on by forming a committee whose full report remains unpublished, even as some concrete administrative changes, including joint bank accounts and nomination rights, have followed, leaving LGBTQ+ rights advocates to argue the response so far falls well short of the comprehensive framework the original petitioners sought.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available Supreme Court judgments and news reports listed below. It is written for general informational purposes and does not represent an official statement from the Government of India or the Supreme Court of India.
Sources
FAQ
Did the Supreme Court legalise same-sex marriage in India?
No. Its October 2023 verdict found no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution and declined to extend legal recognition, leaving that decision to Parliament.
What did the court order instead?
Unanimously, it directed the government to form a committee examining practical rights and entitlements, like joint bank accounts and insurance nomination, for same-sex couples without granting formal marriage status.
What has actually changed for same-sex couples since the ruling?
Some concrete administrative changes have followed, including the ability to open joint bank accounts and name same-sex partners as nominees, though the government committee’s full report remains unpublished. —
