Supriyo v. Union of India

The petitioners, consisting of queer couples and activists, requested the Supreme Court to

• Recognise the marriage between any two persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity, under the following marriage laws, by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution:
  • Special Marriage Act of 1954[23]
  • Hindu Marriage Act of 1955[24][25][26]
  • Foreign Marriage Act of 1969[30]
• Declare the notice and objection provisions of the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act as void, by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.[31]
• Declare that a foreign-origin queer spouse of an Indian Citizen or Overseas Citizen of India is entitled to apply for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India under the Citizenship Act of 1955.[13][32]
• Declare that a person can nominate anyone in the place of ‘next of kin’ under all relevant laws by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.[21]

The respondent, Union Government under the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership, opposed extending the right to marry and establish a family to queer Indians because

• Non-recognition of the rights of queer Indians to marry and establish a family does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.[8]
• Legitimate state interests are constitutionally permissible grounds for limiting the legal recognition of marriage following the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties of the Indian Constitution.[8]
• The Legislature reflects the collective wisdom of the nation, and it solely possesses the power to enact a law governing human relationships.[8]

Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, a statutory body of the Government of Delhi, intervened to support extending the right to marry and adopt for queer people because

• Multiple studies have shown that same-sex parents are not any different from opposite-sex parents.[6]
• Discrimination against queer people would affect the psychological well-being of queer children, resulting in low self-esteem and depression.[6]

An Islamic organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind intervened in the case opposing the extension of the right to marry and establish a family to queer Indians on socio-legal and religious grounds.[9]

TBA

This section contains a summary of relevant precedents, issues and laws submitted by the petitioners.

The petitioners argued that the exclusion of queer couples from marriage laws constituted a violation of fundamental rights.[5] Similarly, the notice and objection provisions in secular marriage laws— Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act— constituted a violation.[31] Hence, following Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Constitutional Remedies and designates the Supreme Court as the protector of Fundamental Rights, the petitioners argued that they are within their rights to approach the Supreme Court.[53]

In assessing whether a law infringes a fundamental right, the Supreme Court held that it is not the intention of the lawmaker that is determinative, but whether the effect or operation of the law infringes fundamental rights in the ruling of Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. UOI (1962), Bennett Coleman and Co. v. UOI (1972) and Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978). Since the marriage laws infringe on the fundamental rights of queer people, petitioners argued that the Supreme Court could act as the designated protector of fundamental rights.[11][14][16][17] The Supreme Court has regularly interpreted statutes in a manner which preserves their constitutionality, for example, in Travancore v. Mohammed Mohammed Khan (1981), Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) and Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011).[11][14][16][27] Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that when the enforcement of fundamental rights is concerned, the Supreme and High Courts do not have to await action by the legislature in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), Vineet Narain v. UOI (1997), Shayara Bano v. UOI (2017), Common Cause v. UOI (2018) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018).[13][15][21]

The law, reflecting societal values, regulates relationships between people and prescribes behaviour patterns. As the social realities changes, the law changes. However, sometimes a legal change precedes societal changes and is even intended to stimulate. The Supreme Court, noting these dynamics when ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), held that the court should exercise discretion in determining the proper relationship between the subjective and objective purposes of the law.[11][14][16][27][28] The Supreme Court held that while the State can impose reasonable restrictions based on decency and morality, the limitations should be rational and tolerant of unpopular social views in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018).[13][15] The petitioners highlighted the instances where the Indian Courts protected fundamental rights by defying social and religious norms.— Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986), Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999), Shayara Bano v. UOI (2017), Joseph Shine v. UOI (2018) and Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration (2019).[10][11][12][14][15][19][21][27] The Supreme Court stated the purpose of elevating certain rights to the stature of fundamental rights as to insulate their exercise from the disdain of majorities, whether legislative or popular, in Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017).[12][15][16][21]

Since the Supreme Court established the fundamental rights of queer people in NLSA v. UOI (2014), Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018), the petitioners argued for extending the right to marry and establish a family to queer people based on the following articles:[5]

• Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to equality. The Supreme Court declared that any law that fails to protect the self-determination of sexual orientation and gender identity of an individual is irrational, manifestly arbitrary, and a violation of Article 14.[5] The Supreme Court has recognised the principle of substantive equality in Lt. Col. Nitisha v. UOI (2021).[21] The Supreme Court held that atypical families, such as domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships, deserve equal protection under the law guaranteed in Article 14 in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022).[16][26][29]
• Article 15 of the Indian Constitution guarantees protection from discrimination. The Supreme Court extended the protection to include sexual orientation and gender identity.[5] The Supreme Court has recognised the principle of substantive equality in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) and Lt. Col. Nitisha v. UOI (2021).[21] Considering the cultural stereotypes based on sex and gender and their role in discriminatory legislation, the Supreme Court held that judicial scrutiny to weave out discrimination must be strict in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007).[10][13][21] The Supreme Court held that Article 15 places positive and negative obligations on the State in Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018), where positive obligations call for the state to recognise rights which bring true fulfilment to same-sex relationships.[11][16]
• Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court held that Article 19 includes full expression of sexual orientation and gender identity.[5] The Supreme Court held that the choice of marital partner is an exercise of freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19 in Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017), Shakti Vahini v. UOI (2018) and Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M. (2018).[5]
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy. The Supreme Court recognised the rights guaranteed by Article 21 for queer individuals.[5] The Supreme Court held that Article 21 recognises the right to choose a marital partner in the ruling of Shakti Vahini v. UOI (2018), Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) and Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M. (2018), Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v. State of Karnataka (2021).[5]
• Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religion.
  • Since the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of conscience of an individual is more than religious beliefs in Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017), the petitioners argued that the freedom to choose a marital partner is an integral component of freedom of conscience.[11][14][16][19][27][28]
  • Since the Supreme Court ruled that in addition to freedom of religion, Article 25 guarantees freedom from religion in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019), the petitioners claiming recognition under the secular marriage laws argued the state should not endorse the conception of marriage that is exclusively heterosexual, as it is rooted in the norms of religion.[17][22]
  • Since Hinduism does not prohibit queer marriage, the petitioners claiming recognition under personal laws argued exclusion of queer marriage from the Hindu Marriage Act violates the petitioners' right to practice religion freely.[24][25] The Madras High Court held that refusal to register the marriage between a Hindu cisman and a Hindu transwoman under Hindu Marriage Act violates Article 25 in Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration (2019).[25]

High Courts have considered the constitutionality of Indian marriage laws. The Madras High Court held that refusal to register the marriage between a Hindu cisman and a Hindu transwoman under Hindu Marriage Act violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution in Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration (2019).[10][12][15][19][25][27]

The petitioners requested that the Supreme Court declare that the gender change of a spouse would not automatically void solemnised marriage.[21] As an extension of recognising the right to marry and establishing a family, the petitioners argued for the entitlement of a foreign-origin queer spouse of an Indian Citizen or Overseas Citizen of India to apply for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India.[13][32]

The notice and objections provisions detail the requirement for registering a marriage under the secular marriage laws— Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act. The individuals intending to marry must publish their details in Marriage Notice Book meant for public inspection. Within thirty days of publication, any person can object to their marriage, and a marriage officer, who has the power of a civil court, handles the objections.[54][55]

The intention of the notice and objections provisions is to address the situations where individuals might hide the breach of prerequisites of marriage. However, such deterrents are absent in the personal laws governing marriage. Evidently, notice and objection provisions are not the only way to address the problem of a breach of prerequisites of marriage. The provisions are grossly disproportionate and violate the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution. The provisions violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by creating an unequal burden on individuals who choose to marry under secular marriage laws. It violates Article 15 of the Indian Constitution by discriminating those constrained to marry under secular marriage laws from those who marry under personal laws.[31]

The provisions violate the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 by enabling continuing harassment and persecution.[31] Multiple news reports document the role of the provision in enabling continuing harassment and persecution.[34][35][36] The 2010 Indian case studies documented the barrier posed by these procedural requirements of the secular marriage laws.[37] The Law Commission published a consultation paper on the Reform of Family Law that recognised the notice and objection provision of secular marriage laws as an impediment to personal autonomy.[38] The Law Commission published a report on the Prevention of Interference with the freedom of Matrimonial Alliances that recommended the removal of the notice and objection provisions of the secular marriage laws to prevent “high-handed or unwarranted interference” in marriages.[39]

The provisions violate the decisional autonomy guaranteed by Article 21 by authorising any person to object to the marriage.[31] The Law Commission published a consultation paper on the Reform of Family Law that recognised the provisions as an impediment to personal autonomy protected by Article 21.[38] The provisions force individuals to surrender their right to privacy to exercise their right to marry.[31] The Supreme Court held that a requirement that forces the individual to give up one constitutional right to exercise another is unconstitutional in the ruling of Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974).[17]

High Courts have considered the constitutionality of the provisions. Remarking that unwarranted disclosure of the marriage plans might jeopardise the marriage and endanger the lives of the couple, the Delhi High Court deprecated the practice of sending notices to residential addresses in the ruling of Pranav Kumar Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009).[19] Relying on the right to personal liberty and privacy, Allahabad High Court read down the notice and objection provision of the Special Marriage Act as a directory and not mandatory in the ruling of Safiya Sultana v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021).[17][19][20]

Despite the landmark decision of the Supreme Court asserting the right to self-determination of sexual orientation and gender identity in NLSA v. UOI (2014), Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018), the birth or adoptive family continues to interfere and restrict the self-determination. As the vast majority of Indian laws define ‘family’ to be persons related by marriage, birth or adoption, the petitioners have presented a compelling case for legal recognition of their marital relationships to formalise access to rights and obligations. However, many others do not share the aspiration for married life, and the law cannot ignore them. They may choose friends, domestic partners and other persons of vital importance to assign rights and obligations.[21]

While the conflict with the birth or adoptive family may have given rise to the idea of chosen family, it does not challenges birth or adoptive family bonds but allows for a more inclusive understanding of adult relationships. Most queer people, informed by their lived experience of family rejection, hostility and violence, require a legal substitute for the family for healthcare, social and economic rights and obligations. Recognising any person as capable of serving the best interests of an individual in a state of vulnerability or incapacitation, the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 authorised an individual to appoint any person as the nominated representative. Legal limiting next of kin to persons related by marriage, birth or adoption violates the decisional autonomy of queer people.[21]

The Supreme Court has recognised the principle of substantive equality, which prohibits the State from expecting conformity as a price for equality in Lt. Col. Nitisha v. UOI (2021). The Supreme Court held that married and unmarried persons have equal decisional autonomy to make decisions about their welfare in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2022). The Supreme Court held that atypical families deserve equal protection under the law guaranteed in Article 14 in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022). Relying on these precedents, the petitioners argued that unmarried queer people deserve recognition and protection of the law when they seek to nominate any person beyond the constraints of biological or adoptive families.[21]

High Courts have expanded the scope of legal heirs for intersex, non-binary and transgender people in Illyas v. Badshah alias Kamla (1990) and Sweety v. General Public (2016). The petitioners request the Supreme Court to declare that a person can nominate anyone in the place of ‘next of kin’ under all relevant laws.[21]

India is a party to various international treaties concerning human rights. India voted to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948, and the same is enforceable in India under the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993. India ratified the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) on 10 April 1979.[56]Over the last three decades, International human rights law has developed an established jurisprudence on the rights to equality, privacy and autonomy of queer persons and protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.[57]

Since the Supreme Court enforced the international treaties discussed above while ruling in the NLSA v. UOI (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018), the petitioners argued extending the right to marry and establish a family to queer people based on the following articles:[56]

• Article 7 of the UDHR, Article 26 of ICCPR and Article 2 of ICESCR prohibit discrimination based on ‘sex... or other status.’[58][59][60] The UN Human Rights Committee stated that the ‘other status’ includes sexual orientation.[61] The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights urged the member states to ensure that a person's sexual orientation is not a barrier to realising Covenant Rights.[62]
• Article 16 of the UDHR, Article 23 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of ICESCR guarantee the right to marry and establish a family.[58][59][60] Travaux préparatoires shows that drafters of UDHR changed the language in the right to marry from ‘everyone’ to the specific ‘men and women’ to highlight that women have the right to marry. The drafters did not intend to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.[63] The UN Human Rights Committee urged member states to recognise marriage for same-sex couples to fulfil their ICCPR obligations.[64][65][66][67]
• Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR prohibit arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence.[58][59]

The Supreme Court held that Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (2007) is consistent with various fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution and stated that they must be recognised and followed in the decision of NLSA v. UOI (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018). The petitioners pointed to:[11][12][14][15][16][20][21][25][28][29]

• Principle 24 of the Yogyakarta Principles, which recognises the right to establish a family, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. It calls for the State to recognise same-sex marriage or registered partnership and ensure that same-sex married or registered partners have the entitlements, privileges, obligations and benefits available to opposite-sex married or registered partners.[68]

In anticipation of an oppositional argument that could emphasise marriage as traditionally and historically being limited to opposite-sex couples, the petitioners argue that generations of denial are not an argument for its perpetuation. They point to the majority opinion of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), in which Associate Justice Kennedy wrote that if rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then past practices would serve as continued justification for denying the new groups the rights.[12][15]

In anticipation of an opposition prophesy that upholding everybody’s fundamental right to marry would diminish the worth of opposite-sex marriages, petitioners point to the conclusion of the majority on the same discussion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), “it is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of the love and commitment between same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples.”[12][15]

Finally, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution corresponds to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. UOI (1950). While deciding the Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), the Supreme Court held that the despite the lack of the Due Process Clause in the Constitution of India same consequence ensued after the decisions in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Affirming the verdict of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), the Supreme Court held that substantive due process is applied to the fundamental right to life and liberty in Mohd Arif v. The Registrar (2014). Hence, the United States Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which held the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is relevant to the current case.[18][26]

The Supreme Court recognised the principles of comity of nations in the ruling of Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic (1966), Tractor Export v. Tarapore & Co. (1969) and Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (1984). The petitioners called attention to the fact that 32 countries have recognised same-sex marriage. Since Foreign Marriage Act has extra-territorial operations, petitioners argued that it should be read to conform with international developments.[12][13][27][28]

The petitioners argue that the Citizenship Act does authorise the officials to examine the marriage under Indian law. Therefore, as long as the marriage is validly registered overseas and the queer spouse of foreign origin satisfies other conditions, they are entitled to apply for OCI.[13] They point to the ruling of the Israeli High Court of Justice that registration officials, who are not competent to examine the validity of the marriage under Israeli law, should register the same-sex marriage of Israeli Citizens performed validly overseas in Ben-Ari v. Director of Population Administration (2006).[13]

The petitioners highlighted various entitlements, privileges, obligations and benefits limited to marital, blood or adoptive relationships. These legal provisions exclude legally unrecognised spouses and families of queer people.

When a patient cannot communicate their wishes due to being in a persistent vegetative state, having a form of dementia or similar illness, or being under anaesthesia, legally unrecognised spouses and families of queer people are not allowed to make healthcare decisions for them[11][15][16][21]

Legally unrecognised spouses and families of queer people face discrimination in organ donation in the case of both living or deceased partners.[11][12][14][15][16][25] Under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act of 1994, the declaration to donate organs requires the presence of at least one marital, blood or adoptive relative. As a result, unrecognised spouses and families cannot make these vital decisions about queer family members. Queer couples need prior approval of the Authorisation Committee under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act. The Committee evaluates the proof of affection or attachment to the intended recipient of the organ before permitting organ donation, which legally married couples need not provide.[69]

Queer families lack the rights around succession, maintenance, joint ownership of assets, taxation and benefits. As private entitlements exclude queer families, queer people face more barriers and higher scrutiny in privately offered life insurance nominations, owning joint bank accounts and lockers, and mutual funds and savings plans.[11][12][14][15][16][25][27]

According to the Income Tax Act of 1961, the payments made on behalf of a spouse are included in the deduction when computing the total income. These deductions include the payments made towards life insurance, a deferred annuity of the life of a spouse, the spouse's provident fund set up by the Central Government and the spouse for participation in the Unit-linked Insurance Plan.[70] Queer families cannot claim such deductions.[11][12][14][15][16][25][27][28]

According to the Supreme Court ruling on Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, the spousal consortium considered in the claims, including the claims for injury and death in the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 cases, is only available to married couples.[71][72] Hence the legally unrecognised spouses of queer people are denied such claims.[11][14][16][25]

Without recognition of the right to marry, queer couples cannot access the benefits available to opposite-sex couples through various legislation. Queer couples in government service cannot request same-city postings. A queer partner cannot receive the healthcare coverage provided to the spouse of government employees.[11][14][16][25]

The government grants an appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a government servant dying or retired on medical grounds and leaving their family without any livelihood. Queer couples are not eligible for compassionate appointments or family pensions.[11][14][16][25]

Under the current reading of the Indian Acts,queer employee cannot nominate their legally unrecognised family for benefits and entitlements as long as their biological or adoptive family members are alive.[73][74] Some of the Acts highlighted by the petitioners are:[11][12][13][14][15][16][25][27][28]

• Employee's Compensation Act of 1923,[75]
• Employees' Provident Funds Act of 1952,[76]
• Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972,[77]
• Payment of Wages Act, 1936[78][79] and
• Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act of 2008.[80][81]

Since private entitlements, such as healthcare and other spousal benefits extended in private employment, exclude queer families, queer people face more barriers and higher scrutiny in acquiring spousal benefits.[11][14]

Queer couples do not have the right to reside in a shared household. Hence, queer people cannot rely on their partner's rented or owned home to prove residence for official purposes.[11][14][16][25]

Without recognition of the right to marry, queer couples cannot have children through adoption, surrogacy, or assisted reproductive technologies.[14][16][29]

The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, along with relevant rules, does not allow unmarried couples and couples in a live-in relationship to adopt children as a couple.[82][83] The Adoption Regulations of 2022 state that a child cannot be given in adoption to a couple unless they have at least two years of a stable marital relationship.[83] In line with the Adoption Regulations, the Central Adoption Resource Authority has decided that single prospective adoptive parents, who are in a live-in relationship with a partner, will not be considered eligible to adopt a child.[83][84]

The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act of 2021 allows only married couples to have children through surrogacy.[85] The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act of 2021 allows only infertile married couples to obtain the services of an authorised clinic or bank for assisted reproductive technologies.[86]

Since the parents cannot get married, the child has no legal relationship with an unrelated parent. As a result, various entitlements, privileges, obligations and benefits are unavailable to the unrelated parent and the child. An unrelated parent cannot make medical decisions in the case of an emergency.[16]

The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 provides spousal privilege, that is, immunity from being compelled to disclose any communication between spouses during their marriage. Additionally, they cannot disclose any communication without their partner or partner's representative's consent.[87] Queer couples do not have this crucial protection privilege under Indian evidentiary law.[11][13][14][15][16][25][27][28]

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 protects women in an opposite-sex marital or live-in relationship. The law extends its protection to women living in a household, such as sisters or mothers, but fails to protect women in a queer relationship.[11][15]

A spouse of foreign origin of an Indian Citizen or OCI is entitled to apply for registration as an OCI under the Citizenship Act. OCI is a form of permanent residency which allows cardholders to live and work in India indefinitely. Without recognition of the right to marry, a foreign-origin queer spouse is not eligible for OCI Card.[13][32]

Recognition of the right to marry for queer Indians is crucial for acquiring a visa and residency. Queer families cannot declare the name of their spouse or parent on their passports. Similarly, OCI cardholders are subject to the notification issued by the Union Government— for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Union Government allowed OCI cardholders with Indian parents or spouses alone to enter the country.[27]

Legally sanctioned exclusion, such as the prohibition of queer marriage, constitutes a form of structural discrimination which reinforces ignorance and prejudice and leads to widespread discrimination, rejection and violence against queer Indians.[11][12][16][17][19][21][22][88]

The petitioners demonstrate widespread discrimination, rejection and violence against queer Indians by reporting relevant peer-reviewed studies and news articles.[12][19] Family honour culture is one of the reasons for the harassment of queer Indians.[89] A 2021 multinational study documented the attitudes towards violence against queer people in five countries: India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran and England. Indians ranked second, following Pakistanis, for their belief that gay men had damaged their family honour and their acceptance of verbal abuse and life-threatening violence by the family towards gay men.[90]

Familial harassment takes various forms of violence and violations. A 2016 Indian study reported the family as the primary source of psychological, physical and sexual violence against queer Indians that normalises such violence for queer Indians.[91] 2011 Indian qualitative study documented the endemic and pervasive nature of violence faced by queer women, such as psychological and verbal abuse, bodily harm, forced marriage, wrongful confinement, medical abuse and corrective rape.[92] Familial harassment and rejection are common reasons for homelessness and suicide among queer Indians.[93][94] India lacks comprehensive statistics on suicide among queer Indians.[93] A 2011 Mumbai-based study of men who have sex with men found 45 per cent to be suicidal, with 15 per cent categorised as high risk.[95] A 2016 Indian study estimated the suicide rate among transgender Indians as 31 per cent, and at least 50 per cent of them have attempted suicide at least once before their 20th birthday.[96]

Queer couples face familial harassment in the form of forced separation and wrongful detention or reporting their partners of kidnapping. If the couple were separated and detained by the parents, the partner has to approach a High Court for a writ petition for habeas corpus. The Courts frequently question the locus standi of the individual due to the non-recognition of their relationship.[97] On the other hand, if the parents had reported the kidnapping, the police ascertained if the partner had left on their own accord. However, the seemingly straightforward procedure of recording the individual's statement to determine whether they are acting out of their free will gets complicated due to societal prejudice validated by the lack of the right to marry for queer Indians.[98]

Reports have documented instances where lesbian couples have considered, attempted or committed suicide together.[99][100][101] A lesbian couple, Asha Thakor and Bhavna Thakor, facing opposition from their family in rural Gujarat, committed suicide shortly after eloping to the city. The couple had eloped to find a safe space and acceptance but never found it.[102] Similarly, a gay couple from rural Assam, Ankur Das and Brajen Thakuria committed suicide after their families firmly opposed their relationship and blamed them for one of their mother's early death.[103] Despite the existence of suicide notes and social media posts, most of the cases end with first information reports and news articles, without any investigations and persecution of those abetting suicide.[93]

The fear of familial harassment and rejection causes queer Indians to conceal their identity and remain in the closet.[94] However, this does not guarantee their safety.[12] According to a 2015 Indian survey, the majority of gay men who experienced physical violence (52.4%), sexual abuse (55%) and psychological abuse (46.5%) lived with their parents and were most often closeted. In contrast, gay men who lived with their partners or queer Indians faced little abuse. Closeted gay men living with parents cannot freely seek peer support from other queer people when faced with violence.[104]

In the larger society, queer Indians face prejudice in housing, education and employment. queer Indians encounter discrimination from property owners and landlords, leading to a denial of housing and forced evictions.[94][105][106] A 2018 UNESCO-supported Indian study found that 60% of middle school students (ISCED Level 2), 60% of high school students (ISCED Level 3) and 50% of higher secondary school students (ISCED Level 3) were victims of physical violence due to sexual orientation and gender identity. As a result of the harassment, the students reported they had reduced social interaction with their peers (73%), suffered from anxiety and depression (70%), and discontinued school (33.2%).[107] Prejudice in the workplace manifests as harassment and discrimination in the recruitment process and promotions.[105][108][109]

Subsequently, most queer Indians grow old facing life without lawful companionship and confronting the reality of loneliness, which research shows carry a risk comparable to if not exceeds, that of other well-accepted factors, including smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day, obesity, physical inactivity and air pollution.[110][111]

In light of widespread discrimination, rejection and violence against queer Indians, the petitioners argued the queer-inclusive policies — for relationships, parenthood, healthcare, education and employment — provides opportunities to assimilate into society[12] To make their case, the petitioners highlighted the historical role of Indian statutory reforms, such as the abolishment of Sati and recognition of inter-caste marriage and widow remarriage, in aiding the social assimilation of marginalised Indians.[11][25][27] The petitioners highlighted the instances where the Indian Courts got rid of various socially regressive practices in defiance of social and religious norms— Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986), Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999), Shayara Bano v. UOI (2017), Joseph Shine v. UOI (2018) and Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration (2019).[10][11][12][14][15][19][21][27]

Scholars reason that the legal recognition of queer marriage is often accompanied by media attention and increased visibility, which is associated with increased social support for queer people.[88][112][113][114] The increased social support could translate into improved familial and peer acceptance, which is associated with improved mental health.[88][115][116] A 2017 U.S. study found queer teens' suicide attempts declined in U.S. states that enacted laws recognising same-sex marriage. The study also reported the effect of legal recognition of same-sex marriage persisted two years after recognition, disproving the argument that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would negatively affect queer people due to social and political backlash.[88] More directly, the legal recognition of the right to marry would extend the previously discussed benefits, entitlements, privileges and obligations to queer couples and improve their quality of life.[12]

The petitioners argued that the structural discrimination against queer Indians, such as the prohibition of queer marriage, hurts economic output— an unnecessary cost to all Indian citizens.[12] Cross-country studies have estimated that the legal provision of same-sex marriage is associated with a long-term increase in GDP per capita of 54 to 64 per cent.[117][118]

Discrimination in the workplace leads to underutilisation of human capital if a less skilled worker from favoured groups is hired or promoted instead of a skilled queer worker. If the skilled queer workers cannot find a suitable option, then the unutilised or underutilised skilled queer workers constitute a loss to economic output.[118]

In addition to discrimination, the harassment of queer workers can reduce their productivity, even if their wages and employment are not directly affected.[118] A 2016 study found that 40 per cent of queer workers experienced harassment by their peers, and 66 per cent heard anti-queer comments.[119] A 2019 study found that queer workers are 10 per cent less productive in the same job as the general population, leading to a loss of 0.4 per cent of GDP annually.[120]

Several studies found a positive association between queer-friendly policies and financial measures like stock prices, asset returns, per-worker output and employee innovation.[12][121][122][123] It is not a coincidence that 91 per cent of Fortune 500 companies included sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies in 2019.[12][124]

When denied equal rights, queer Indians who can migrate, often highly educated or financially resourceful individuals, migrate to countries that afford better protection.[12][118] Sexual Migration— migration where sexual orientation is an influential factor— is a well-documented and widespread phenomenon.[125] Studies focusing on Indian migrants have documented the lack of queer rights in India as a motivating factor for the decision.[126][127] Due to the lack of Indian studies on sexual migration, the petitioners pointed to the Hong Kong study, which reported that 52.5 per cent considered leaving because of their sexual orientation, of whom 91.3 per cent cited the lack of marriage equality as a reason.[12][128]

Research shows a positive correlation between acceptance of homosexuality and foreign investments.[129] When comparing cities, there is a positive association between homosexual residents, foreign-born residents and the number of successful businesses.[130] Additionally, queer tourism was worth 211 billion dollars in 2016.[131] Queer travellers tend to spend more than cisgendered heterosexual travellers, but they are unlikely to choose destinations which lack adequate protections for queer people.[131]

The studies show the stigma and social exclusion experienced by queer Indians lead to higher incidences of physical and mental health problems among queer Indians compared to the general population drastically reducing their ability to engage in productive work and contribute to overall economic activity.[118] Canadian and US studies on the cost of stigma and social exclusion have used data on depression, suicide, smoking, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, HIV, hospitalisation, lost days of work, and early mortality.[132][133][134] Since India lacks such comprehensive data on the health disparity of queer Indians, the 2014 World Bank study considered only depression, suicide and HIV among queer Indians.[12][118][135] The study estimates stigma and social exclusion of queer Indians cost India up to 1.3 per cent of its GDP annually.[120]

Researchers’ preferred explanation for the higher incidences of mental health problems among queer people is that stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create a stressful social environment that can lead to these problems.[136] Rates of depression among queer Indians are 6 to 12 times higher than the general population.[118] A Mumbai-based study of men who have sex with men found 45 per cent to be suicidal, with 15 per cent categorised as high risk.[95] This range of suicidal ideation among queer Indians is 7 to 14 times the suicidal ideation among the general population from developing countries, including India.[118]

Social exclusion might make healthcare services less relevant or accessible to queer Indians.[118] A study found that prejudice in society, specifically among healthcare providers, and experiencing negative consequences when disclosing their identity was associated with lower access to HIV preventive measures among queer people.[137] The rate of HIV among Indians is 0.35 per cent, whereas the rate for queer Indians is 5.7 per cent.[138]

On 12th March 2023, the Union Government under the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court, opposing extending the right to marry to queer Indians.[7] This section contains a summary of relevant precedents, issues and laws submitted.

The Union Government argued that denying the right to marry for queer Indians does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. To make their case, they point to the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018) that explicitly differentiated and excluded marital relationships while reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code for violating fundamental rights. They argue that the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexual conduct but did not legitimise it.[8]

Normativity is an intelligible differentia which distinguishes opposite-sex couples from queer couples. The rationale for this classification is to ensure social stability through legal recognition of marriage. Hence the non-recognition of queer marriage does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.[8]

Opposite-sex couples living together do not enjoy the same status as opposite-sex married couples. The Supreme Court held the presumption of the marriage of couples living together is rebuttable in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation(1978). Not every form of opposite-sex relationship is on par with opposite-sex marriage. Since the non-recognition of queer marriage is not discrimination only based on sex, it does not violate Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.[8]

While all citizens have a right to an association under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, the State is not obligated to recognise such associations. The State limits the legal recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. While the State does not recognise various forms of marriages, unions or relationships between individuals in society, they are not unlawful either.[8]

The Union Government argued against any interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to include any implicit approval of the right to marry for queer Indians. They point to the Supreme Court decision that explicitly differentiated and excluded marital relationships while reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code for violating Article 21 in Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018).[8]

Since the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 are subject to the procedure established by the law, and the Indian marriage laws explicitly limit the recognition to opposite-sex couples, the Supreme Court cannot extend the right to marry to include queer couples. The Supreme Court held that Article 21 provides the right to marry a person of choice but also included that the law may regulate the conditions of a valid marriage in Shafin Jehan vs Asokan K.M (2018).[8]

Marriage is between two individuals with a profound impact on their personal lives, causing petitioners to seek recognition of marriage under the right to privacy, which is intrinsic to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, when considering legal recognition of their marriage and ancillary rights, the State cannot relegate marriage as a concept within the private domain. The legal recognition of marriage is a public recognition of their relationship.[8]

Even if the petitioners can claim the right to marry under Article 21, the legislature can curtail the rights on constitutionally permissible grounds such as legitimate State interest.[8]

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution protects personal laws. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional protection of personal laws when ruling in Shayara Bano v. UOI (2017).[8]

The Union Government pointed to the Supreme Court ruling that reading fundamental rights is not to be done in isolation but along with the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties in Javed v. State of Haryana (2003). They argue that the principles of legitimate state interests as an exception to fundamental rights would be applicable in the current case.[8]

The Union Government argued that a larger legislative framework around the legislative understanding of marriage between opposite sexes demonstrates the legitimate state interest in limiting legal recognition of marriage. The legal recognition of marriage limited to opposite-sex couples is the norm throughout history and foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State.[8]

Codified statutory or uncodified personal laws evolved based on societal values and beliefs, cultural history and religious beliefs. The concept of marriage is a concept emanating from the personal laws of citizens. In Hinduism, marriage is a sacrament for reciprocal duties between cisman and ciswoman. In Islam, marriage is a contract between cisman and ciswoman. With the evolution of jurisprudence, the legislature codified some aspects of marriage. The legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage is to give the relationship a formal character and ensure that all statutory provisions governing the relationships, rights, liabilities, privileges and consequences are available. Despite the statutory recognition of marriage, it relies on historical customs, rituals and practices.[8]

Marriage is a social institution that provides security, support and companionship. Marriage has social and moral obligations in addition to legal obligations and plays a significant role in child-rearing. Same-sex individuals living together and having sexual relationships, which the Supreme Court decriminalised, cannot be compared with the Indian family unit. Indian family unit, which consists of a cisman and ciswoman as a husband and wife, and the children born to them, is a quintessential building block for the existence and continuance of the society.[8]

Considering the social value of marriage, Union Government argued that the State has a legitimate interest in limiting legal recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. While deciding on Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana (1981) and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. UOI (1996), the Supreme Court held that considerations of social morals are relevant in the process of legislating and legislature can judge and enforce such societal morality and public acceptance. The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to lawful actions to prevent crime and disorder or protect the rights and freedom of others, health or morals in the Mr ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (1998). Similarly, the Supreme Court held that the freedom guaranteed by Article 301 of the Indian Constitution is not available to the liquor trade because liquor is a harmful substance detrimental to public health, order and morality.[8]

Given the context of the current case, the Union Government argued that Western decisions, without any basis in Indian Constitutional law jurisprudence, cannot be imported. The Supreme Court rejected the US decision that relied on the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States, which was absent in the Indian Constitution as it relied upon the tests of reasonableness in the ruling of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty (1962) and Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration (1973).[8]

The acceptance of marriage between two individuals of the same gender is neither recognised nor accepted by any uncodified personal or codified statutory laws, such as the Christian Marriage Act of 1872, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936, the Special Marriage Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act. Through specific references to opposite sexes, the legislative intent to limit the legal recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples is clear. The Supreme Court affirmed that marriage is a legal union of a man and a woman in the ruling of Mr ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (1998) and Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004).[8]

Extension of the right to marry to queer Indians would make laws governing marriage, ancillary rights and special provisions for married women otiose. The Supreme Court ruled that the ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ specified in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not include same-sex relationships in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013). The list of legislations that will be affected if the Supreme Court extend the right to marry to queer Indians demonstrates the incompatibility between the right and the current legal framework and the consistent legislative policy that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.[8]

The above list demonstrates the clear legislative intent to limit the legal recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court held that Judiciary is bound to the literal interpretation when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous in the ruling of the Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank (2007). While ruling in Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014), the Supreme Court held that the Judiciary could read down only when the reading of the provision produces an absurd or unworkable result and reads down a law to give effect to its legislative intent. It is not permissible for the Judiciary to change the entire legislative policy of the country deeply embedded in religious, societal, cultural and legal norms.[8]

Recognising marriage and conferring ancillary rights, which have consequences in law and privileges, is a legislative function. The legislature would have to consider and deliberate on the right to adopt and other rights that would naturally follow the recognition of the right to marry for queer Indians. Only a legislature, which reflects the collective wisdom of the nation, can enact legislation based on societal values, beliefs and acceptability, and cultural history to govern, regulate, permit or prohibit human relationships, including issues such as marriage, adoption, divorce, and maintenance.[8]

Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, a statutory body of the Government of Delhi, intervened to support extending the right to marry and adopt for queer people.[6]

An Islamic organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind intervened in the case opposing the extension of the right to marry and establish a family to queer Indians on socio-legal and religious grounds.[9]

A 2-judge bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, heard two similar petitions and agreed to proceed with the case. The Bench sought a response from the Union Government.[1][139]

The advocates representing the petitioners urged a 2-judge bench, consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha, to transfer similar petitions pending in high courts to Supreme Court. The Bench agreed to list the transfer petitions along with the main petition on January 6th, 2023.[139][140]

A 3-judge bench, consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, heard four new petitions and admitted them to join the case. The Bench directed high courts to transfer nine similar petitions— eight from Delhi High Court and one from Kerala High Court to itself.[2][3][139]

The 3-judge Bench heard a petition from Kajal and Bhawna and admitted them to join the case.[49]

The 3-judge Bench heard a petition from Amburi Roy and Aparna Saha and admitted them to join the case.[50]

The 3-judge Bench heard a petition from Akkai Padmashali, Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli and Umesh P and admitted them to join the case.[51]

The 3-judge Bench heard a petition from ten petitioners, including Rituparna Borah, Chayanika Shah, Minakshi Sanyal and Maya Sharma, and admitted them to join the case.[52]

Solicitor General filed the government's response, arguing the petition as wholly unsustainable, untenable and misplaced and urging the 3-judge Bench to dismiss the petition.[8] Considering the cases involved constitutional and statutory questions of law, the Bench invoked Article 145(3) and referred it to the 5-judge Constitutional Bench.[4][139][141]

The retired judges pointed out that separation of power is a basic structure of the Constitution and argued that law-making power is an exclusive domain of the legislature.[142] Contrary to their argument, the law-making power is not an exclusive domain of the legislature in India. The common law, a body of law based on judicial decisions, is part of the Indian legal system. It is evident in Article 141 of the Constitution, which states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all other courts in India.[144]

Law professors G.S. Bajpai and Ankit Kaushik joined the retired judges arguing that legal recognition of queer marriage concerns the entire Society. Therefore, the Society and the Parliament should debate and decide on the issue.[143]

Bangalore-based queer organisation Namma Pride and civil rights group Coalition for Sex Workers and Sexual Minorities Rights co-published an open letter responding to the affidavit filed by Union Government on 12th March 2023. The letter criticised the Union Government for disregarding its constitutional commitment to secure the rights of queer citizens and perpetuating discriminatory marriage laws. The letter called out the Union Government for the hostile statement that queer and opposite-sex couples are distinct classes and that queer couples are undeserving of equal treatment.[145]

Prijith P K, president of Thiruvananthapuram-based queer organization Queerythm, accused Bharatiya Janata Party of filing a ‘homophobic’ counter-affidavit to cater to the social conservative voters for the upcoming elections at the cost of queer rights.[146]

BJP is a right-wing national party. On 12th March 2023, the Union Government under the BJP leadership opposed extending the right to marry to queer Indians in the Supreme Court.[7][147]

On 19 December 2022, BJP Member of the Council of States Sushil Kumar Modi expressed his opposition to the Judicial Review of the Indian marriage laws. He told the Parliament, "India is a country of 1.4 billion people, and two judges cannot just sit in a room and decide on such a socially significant subject. Instead, there should be a debate in Parliament as well as the society at large".[148][149]

Congress is a centre-to-centre-left national party. As some senior leaders dismissed the extension of the right to marry to queer Indians as an unimportant or alien issue for Congress to take an official position, and others shared only their personal views, Congress does not have an official stance on the extending the right to marry to queer Indians.[150]

Congress Member of the Council of States Abhishek Singhvi, who is a lead counsel for one of the petitioners, argued for judicial intervention. He said that the questions about the possible legislative approach are meaningless as the BJP-led Union Government vociferously opposed extending the right to marry to queer Indians.[150]

Congress Member of the House of the People Shashi Tharoor said denying civil rights to same-sex partners is wrong and unjustifiable and should be remedied without delay. Noting the resistance from the majority, he suggested a two-stage process where the first step is a civil partnership, a contract that grants the legal rights of spouses to same-sex partners. After seeing the impact on Indian society, the Union Government might recognise same-sex marriage.[150] 

Congress Member of the House of the People Manish Tewari said that following the decriminalisation of same-sex relations by the 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, legalisation of such relationships should be a natural corollary.[150]

CPI(M) is a left-wing national party. Member of the Politburo Brinda Karat said CPI(M) supports the rights of same-sex partners to get legal recognition of their relationship as a marriage. She called for judicial intervention, as the BJP-led Union Government opposed extending the right to marry for queer Indians.[150]

RSS is a Hindu nationalist organisation and the ideological parent of Prime Minister Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party.[147][151] On 14th March 2023, during the press conference at the end of Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale backed the BJP-led Union Government's opposition to the extension of the right to marry for queer Indians. He said marriage is an institution for the benefit of the family and society, not for physical and sexual enjoyment.[147][151][152]

On 6th January 2023, a right-wing Hindu non-governmental organisation United Hindu Front protested outside the court, decrying homosexuality as against Indian culture and insisting the Supreme Court should not hear the petitions. However, the Supreme Court continued with the hearing.[148][153][154]

On 1st April 2023, Mahmood Asad Madani representing the Islamic organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind sought to intervene as an opponent to extending the right to marry and establish a family to queer Indians. He noted that the sexual liberation movement, which he alleges of being an atheist movement, resulted in the acceptance of homosexuality. Therefore, it should not be allowed to infringe on the religiously governed personal laws.[9]

Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, General Secretary of the Islamic organisation Muslim Personal Law Board, released a statement supporting the Union Government's opposition to extension of the right to marry for queer Indians and stated that the Board would try to become a party to the case if necessary. It said that the act of homosexuality and same-sex marriage is contrary to religion, moral values, and social traditions and is unacceptable, illegal and a crime.[155][156]

Mohammad Salim, Vice President of the Islamic organisation Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, backed the Union Government's opposition to extension of the right to marry for queer Indians. He said that JIH believes in fundamental rights and advocates for freedom and minority rights. However, freedom comes with moral responsibility, and no society can accept crimes, vices and anarchy in the name of freedom and personal liberty.[157]

Queer rights activists Akkai Padmashali, published an open letter condemning BJP MP Sushil Kumar Modi for his speech opposing marriage equality in the Council of States. She reminded him of Dr Ambedkar's words that constitutional morality requires cultivation as it is not a natural sentiment and that the court was duty-bound to apply constitutional morality, not popular morality. As a transwoman, she corrected him that marriage equality is a campaign led by queer people, not left-liberal activists.[158][159] On 27th January 2023, she filed a petition to join the case.[20]

Feminist critic and literary historian Ruth Vanita pointed out that Indian opponents arguing that marriage equality is against Indian culture are ironically borrowing the argument from Western opponents, who claimed that marriage equality is against Western culture. As Indian opponents raised the alarm that marriage equality would cause social havoc, she drew attention to the 31 countries that have recognised the same-sex marriage and did not experience “social havoc”.[160]

Islamic laws and minority rights jurist Tahir Mahmood backed Union Government's opposition to extension of right to marry to queer Indians. He argued that instead of sacrosanct marital unions, queer couples should rely on other legal systems such as cohabitation rights, civil partnership, and traditional contract systems that legitimised extra-marital affairs, such as maitri karar and nata pratha.[161]

A 2021 multinational survey found that 44 per cent of Indians supported same-sex marriage, 18 per cent opposed same-sex marriage, and 14 per cent supported civil partnership but not marriage. Moreover, 56 per cent of Indians said their view had changed in the last five years.[163]

A 2019 Indian survey found that 62 per cent of Indians opposed same-sex marriage, and 24 per cent supported it.[164]

A multinational survey found that 66 per cent of Indians supported same-sex couples' right to adopt, and 21 per cent opposed it. Also, 59 per cent of Indians believed same-sex couples could be equally successful in raising children, and 26 per cent disagreed.[163]