Same-Sex Marriage)
Why Group These Together
- Triple talaq, Sabarimala entry, adultery decriminalization, and same-sex marriage are four separate legal battles, but they share a common structure: each pits an individual's constitutional right to equality/autonomy (Articles 14, 15, 21) against a claim rooted in religious practice, tradition, or legislative deference (Articles 25, 26, or separation of powers).
- Studying them together sharpens exam-writing: nearly every answer on these topics can use the same analytical frame — what constitutional right was claimed, what counter-claim was made, and how the Court balanced the two.
Four Landmark Judgments — At a Glance
📊 Four landmark judgments reshaping gender and personal law in India
Triple Talaq — From Judicial Strike-Down to Criminal Law
- In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), a 3:2 Supreme Court majority held talaq-e-biddat (instant, irrevocable triple talaq) unconstitutional as manifestly arbitrary, violating Article 14.
- Parliament followed up with the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, criminalizing the pronouncement of instant triple talaq — making India one of the few countries to attach criminal liability specifically to this practice.
- Ongoing debate: critics argue criminalizing triple talaq (versus purely civil remedies) risks disproportionately punishing already-vulnerable Muslim men and does not by itself guarantee the divorced woman's maintenance or housing security.
Sabarimala — Unfinished Business
- In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), a 4:1 majority held the temple's exclusion of women aged 10-50 (menstruating age) violated Articles 14, 15, and 17, and struck down the restriction.
- A review petition was filed, and in 2019 a five-judge bench (3:2) referred the matter to a larger seven-judge bench, framing broader questions about the judiciary's role in reviewing "essential religious practices" across multiple faiths — this reference remains pending as of 2026, meaning the underlying constitutional question is technically unsettled even though the original 2018 verdict stands.
Adultery — Decriminalized as an Archaic, Patriarchal Provision
- In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery), which had criminalized a man having sex with another man's wife without her husband's consent — treating the wife essentially as her husband's property and not recognizing her as an equal party capable of consent or complaint.
- The Court held the provision violated Articles 14, 15, and 21, calling it a relic of Victorian-era patriarchal morality rather than a legitimate basis for criminal law — though adultery remains a valid ground for civil divorce.
Same-Sex Marriage — Recognized Rights, Denied Marriage
- In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a 3:2 verdict declining to extend the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to same-sex couples or declare a fundamental right to marry — holding this was a matter for Parliament, not judicial interpretation.
- The Court did affirm that queer couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits available to heterosexual live-in couples under Article 21 — a partial, non-marriage-based recognition.
- A review petition against the verdict was dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2025, finding "no error apparent on the face of the record" — closing, at least for now, the judicial route to marriage equality and leaving legislative action as the only remaining path.
- Meanwhile, some High Courts (e.g., Bombay HC 2023, Andhra Pradesh HC December 2024) have separately affirmed same-sex couples' constitutional right to live together and seek police protection from family interference — a narrower, cohabitation-focused right distinct from marriage itself.
Comparative Summary
Issue Current Status (2026)
Triple talaq Criminalized by statute (2019); settled, though implementation debates continue
Sabarimala entry 2018 verdict technically stands, but larger-bench reference on essential religious practices remains pending
Adultery (Sec. 497) Fully decriminalized (2018); settled
Same-sex marriage No legal marriage recognition; review dismissed (2025); limited live-in rights affirmed separately by some High Courts; matter now rests with Parliament
Current Affairs Connect
📰 IN THE NEWS — Same-Sex Marriage — Legislative Path Now the Only Option
With the Supreme Court's January 2025 dismissal of review petitions, and no comprehensive central legislation introduced since, the same-sex marriage question in India remains at an impasse — courts have deferred to Parliament, but Parliament has not acted. Exam angle: a strong answer should note this institutional standoff explicitly — it is a clean example of the "judicial restraint vs legislative inaction" dynamic that recurs across several social-reform debates in this Part (compare with the marital rape case in Topic 2).
Mains Practice Angle
✍️ MAINS PRACTICE — Practice & Recall
Compare the judicial reasoning in the triple talaq and adultery cases as examples of striking down patriarchal legal provisions. Why did the Supreme Court leave the question of same-sex marriage to Parliament rather than deciding it directly? Discuss the reasoning. Examine the unresolved status of the Sabarimala reference and what it reveals about balancing religious freedom with gender equality. Keywords to use in answers: manifestly arbitrary standard, essential religious practices doctrine, judicial restraint vs activism, Article 21 relational rights short of marriage, legislative deference.
