Abstract

Seventy-five years of the Indian Supreme Court have seen the dynamic evolution of constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in civil liberties and equality. One of the most debated contemporary issues within this framework is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This paper examines the Supreme Court’s approach to LGBTQIA+ rights by analysing two significant judgments: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023). While the Navtej Singh Johar judgment marked a constitutional breakthrough by decriminalizing homosexuality and affirming the dignity and autonomy of queer individuals, the Supriyo Chakraborty verdict, despite its empathetic tone, fell short of extending legal recognition to same-sex unions. This paper argues that the Court’s unwillingness to recognize same-sex marriage reflects a tension between constitutional morality and prevailing social and political norms. It critically examines how this hesitation prevents the full realization of equality and constitutional rights, particularly when such recognition challenges deeply rooted societal beliefs. The paper further explores the role of judicial activism in advancing LGBTQIA+ rights and the limits of judicial power in transforming social institutions such as marriage. The paper concludes that while the Supreme Court has played an instrumental role in advancing LGBTQIA+ rights, the inconsistency in its approach emphasizes the need for comprehensive legal reforms and effective coordination between the judiciary and legislature to uphold the transformative spirit of the Constitution.

Keywords