“It made us think about leaving the country,” said Mabel, a Delhi resident, in response to the impact the 2023 marriage equality ruling had on her. “My partner moved to Ireland last year and I am looking for jobs there to accompany her as the country gives me these basic rights.” [to marry and cohabit]” she added.
Hope was lost and many shed tears when the Supreme Court ruled on October 17, 2023 that this was the case no fundamental right to marry in India. Marriage in India is deeply rooted in cultural traditions. But beyond the rituals, marriage confers crucial legal rights; Protections and financial benefits, such as shared insurance policies; and inheritance rights and tax benefits not available to unmarried couples.
The court also ruled that it had no authority to redefine the terms “marriage” or “spouse” under the law as this falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature.
In a 3-2 ruling, a Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court ruled on the case Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India refused to interpret the Special Marriage Act of 1954 as gender neutral and upheld the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) circular restricting adoption by unmarried couples. The court also ruled that it had no authority to redefine the terms “marriage” or “spouse” under the law as this falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature.
“The verdict was very confusing,” said Sonal Giani, a queer activist and actor. She noted that the bench was divided and although it initially seemed like the judges were in favor of the petitioners, Sonal adds, “It became tiring listening to the judges for three to four hours only to realize that this is not a positive verdict.”
The bench led the formation of a high-level committee under the Union Cabinet Secretary and tasked it with examining how certain rights could be extended to queer couples. These include treating queer partners as part of the same “family” in order to receive food stamps; Enabling the opening of joint bank accounts with the partner as nominee; Recognition of partners as “next of kin” of terminally ill patients; granting access to the body to perform last rites; Granting visitation rights in prison similar to married couples; Ensuring the right to pension and tips; insurance coverage; and the discussion of succession and inheritance rights.
The right to marry
“After the verdict, the first thought was that we might have to wait another decade.” We had to rethink our entire strategy. “We opened joint accounts and I started applying for jobs in countries like Australia,” Mabel said.
The main applicants in the case were Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, who held an engagement ceremony in 2021 and claimed that the ban on marriage violated their right to equality.
The main applicants in the case were Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, who had held an engagement ceremony in 2021. They were the main applicants, but the case included 20 petitions involving 52 individuals and 17 queer couples, which were heard and heard together.
“The movement was led by those who wanted the right to marry, not only to have a family but also to have access to wealth, wills and healthcare,” said Krish*, a resident of Chandigarh. The petitioners not only demanded equal and stigma-free recognition of queer relationships in the eyes of society, but also demanded important legal rights and recognition. From financial benefits to parents’ right to adopt, they argued that denial of these rights resulted in their treatment as “second-class citizens” and violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
For Krish, the positive takeaway from the ruling was that the Supreme Court recognized that the government should give queer couples access to services that married heterosexual couples already have.
For Krish, the positive takeaway from the ruling was that the Supreme Court recognized that the government should give queer couples access to services that married heterosexual couples already have. Overall, however, she found the verdict very disappointing. Meanwhile, Sonal noted, “You felt like they were recognizing your rights, but they didn’t.”
The aftermath of the verdict
Sonal explained that people who publicly identify as queer “won’t go back under the hood.” “Earlier, when people were in the shadows, no one held the state accountable. But we are also citizens of India and as tax-paying citizens, we want equal rights,” she added.
The Union government announced the formation of a high-level committee two years ago on April 16, 2024. Actions taken in several government advisories include the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) notifying that there will be no restrictions for queer partners in opening joint bank accounts, issuing guidelines to treat queer couples as part of the same ‘family’ for ration cards, issuing a Home Ministry advisory to all states giving equal right to prison visits to queer couples as married heterosexual couples, and issuing guidelines to allow queer persons to use their partner’s body for last rites claim.
After a August 28, 2024, advisory When the Ministry of Financial Services made it clear that there were no legal restrictions for queer couples to name their partners as beneficiaries of their bank accounts, Mabel and her partner contacted 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 government post on X (formerly Twitter) about the RBI’s clarification and visited her bank the very next day. But everyone in the bank was unaware of this. However, at her insistence, the process for a joint bank account was initiated and there have been no problems since then.
Departments and agencies do not have a standard for identifying queer couples who should receive claims, and without accepted proof of connection, advice and notifications will be ineffective in practice.
Despite these measures, many challenges remain. On the one hand, queer couples need a recognized mechanism to prove their partnership. Furthermore, departments and agencies lack a standard for identifying queer couples who should receive claims, and without accepted proof of connection, advice and notifications will be ineffective in practice.
Sonal, for example, mentioned that she could not open a joint bank account with her partner because the employees were not aware of the ruling or the instructions. She said: “We will not educate them and face homophobia.” “It makes no sense for me to come out without a clear indication from their side that they would be friendly.”
India’s Supreme Courts are taking the lead
The concept of “chosen family” for queer couples in India is officially recognized The Madras High Court ruled“Marriage is not the only way to start a family.” The ruling followed a petition from a woman whose same-sex partner was violently detained and abused by her birth family. The court ordered their immediate release and emphasized the right of an adult to let their life partner decide on their parents’ wishes. The court also directed the police to protect the couple from future harassment. Other such cases are pending in various courts across the country.
In August 2025, the Bombay High Court granted a petition filed by a same-sex couple. Challenge to 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 exempt from taxation, but this exemption is not granted to queer couples. The ruling is still pending and the government has opposed it, claiming that only the legislature has the power to recognize civil partnerships. A similar case was filed in the Karnataka High Court in October 2025 and the verdict is pending.
On the future of the fight for marriage equality, Mabel said: “The ruling leaves room for hope and scope, but at the same time there is also uncertainty and fear.” It’s a waiting game.’
Sonal notes that many queer couples perform wedding ceremonies even though it is not legally recognized. She also mentioned cases of co-parenting by queer couples as under 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 of their parents,” she added.
On the future of the fight for marriage equality, Mabel said: “The ruling leaves room for hope and scope, but at the same time there is also uncertainty and fear.” It’s a waiting game.’
Some quotes in this article have been edited for clarity and length.
*Some people’s names have been changed to protect their privacy.
Second year student of Media Studies at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), BRC, Bangalore. A trained Kathak dancer, theater artist and political nerd.
