Abstract

In India, queer individuals stand at a bittersweet crossroads: free to love, yet forbidden to marry. While landmark judgments like Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy have celebrated the ideals of autonomy, privacy, and identity, queer citizens remain legal strangers - excluded from marriage, adoption, and family rights. This exclusion is not a benign legislative delay but a direct affront to the Constitution’s promises of equality, liberty, dignity, and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court’s decision in Supriyo v. Union of India acknowledged queer love but offered symbolism without substance, recognition without remedy. This article contends that the denial of marriage equality is a grave constitutional violation, not a policy choice. Drawing on rigorous doctrinal analysis and international human rights standards under the ICCPR, it argues that marriage equality is a legal and moral imperative. Through proposed amendments to de-gender and democratize India’s marriage statutes, the article charts a clear path forward. More than a legal reform, this is a democratic reckoning - a test of whether India’s constitutional ethos can rise above social prejudice. A nation that prides itself on diversity cannot remain complicit in legally sanctioned exclusion. The Constitution demands more than passive recognition; it calls for transformative inclusion. History will remember whether the law merely observed queer love or truly upheld it. Marriage equality is not a distant goal - it is a constitutional necessity whose time has come.

Keywords