[Answered] Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s assertion that there is no fundamental right to marriage under the Indian Constitution. How does this position impact the interpretation of personal liberty and individual rights?

Recently, SC asserted in its famous judgment Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India that there is no fundamental right to marriage under the Indian Constitution. The court was hearing a petition filed by the LGBTQIA+ community to grant legal recognition to their marriages.

Implication of SC verdict

• Legal Recognition: The absence of legal recognition for same-sex marriage means that same-sex couples in India cannot enjoy the legal rights and benefits associated with marriage, such as inheritance, property rights, and spousal support.
• Social Stigma: The lack of legal recognition contributes to the continued social stigma and discrimination faced by the LGBTQ+ community. This can lead to various forms of social exclusion and discrimination.
• Property and Inheritance: Same-sex partners may face difficulties in cases of property ownership, inheritance, and tax benefits available to married couples.
• Psychological and Emotional Well-being: The absence of legal recognition can contribute to the psychological and emotional stress experienced by same-sex couples who wish to have their relationships legally recognized.

Impact on personal liberty and individual rights

• Right to Privacy: The right to privacy was highlighted as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in the Navtej Singh Johar case. Denying same-sex marriage rights can be seen as an infringement on the privacy and personal choices of LGBTQ+ people, which can affect their capacity to build family ties and maintain their privacy.
• Non-discrimination: Discrimination on any basis, including sex, is forbidden by the Indian Constitution. Denying same-sex couples the opportunity to be married could be interpreted as a sexual orientation-based form of discrimination. This begs the question of whether the prohibition against marital rights is in line with the non-discrimination clause of the Constitution.
• Personal Autonomy: A key component of individual autonomy is personal liberty, which includes the freedom to get married. Denying same-sex couples the opportunity to marry limits their freedom to make decisions about their relationships and lives.
• Parental Rights: Same-sex couples may face challenges when it comes to adoption and parental rights. While adoption is allowed by single LGBTQ+ individuals, the recognition of both partners as legal parents may not be straightforward.

Conclusion

The interpretation of the court should be based on constitutional morality” rather than ethos of majoritarian morality. Courts should take a liberal interpretation of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 as it did by recognizing the right to self-determination of gender, right to information, rights to privacy, dignity, shelter, right to livelihood, and the right to be forgotten.