Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Same-sex marriage has no legal recognition in India as per the recent Supreme Court’s judgment, where it was decided that this is an issue for Parliament to address. While Hindu marriages between transgender persons and cisgender men are permissible, and the Court acknowledged systemic discrimination and the right to choose a partner, it held that there is no fundamental right to marry. The government has been urged to form a panel to consider granting more legal rights to same-sex couples, but the legal status of marriage remains unchanged for now. The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty &Anr. v. Union of India (2023), in a majority verdict, ruled that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, making it beyond the court’s scope to legislate on same-sex marriage. The Court stated that the power to legislate on same-sex marriage rests with the Parliament and state legislatures. The judgment affirmed constitutional rights for LGBTQ+ citizens and the right to choose a partner. The government agreed to set up a panel to explore legal rights and benefits for same-sex couples, though these benefits are not the same as those conferred by marriage.
Same-sex couples cannot legally marry and do not receive the same legal rights, such as automatic inheritance, pension, or adoption rights, that legally married couples do.Despite the ruling, LGBTQ+ couples continue to face legal discrimination and have no social recognition of marriage. The Court affirmed the right of same-sex couples to cohabit privately. While the Supreme Court’s verdict brought limited benefits and acknowledgments, it has not legalized same-sex marriage in India, deferring the ultimate decision to the Parliament. (279 words)
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from ”The Hindu”, dated 27th October 2023]
During a legal proceeding in India, an advocate argues that the Supreme Court should directly legislate on same-sex marriage because the right to choose a partner inherently implies a fundamental right to marry for all citizens. How would the Supreme Court’s judgment likely to counter this argument?
Correct Answer :
The Court held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, and such a policy can be made only by the Parliament
Solution :
The correct option is:
The Court held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, and such a policy can be made only by the Parliament
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Understanding the Advocate's Argument:
The advocate argues that because the Supreme Court recognizes the right to choose a partner, it inherently implies a fundamental right to marry. Therefore, according to the advocate, the Supreme Court should directly legislate to legalize same-sex marriage.
2. Analyzing the Passage:
According to the provided text:
3. Countering the Advocate's Argument:
The Court counters the advocate's premise by drawing a clear distinction between the right to choose a partner (which is recognized) and a fundamental right to marry (which is not recognized under the Constitution). Since there is no fundamental right to marry, and the authority to create marriage laws belongs to the legislative branch, the Court cannot legislate on this issue.
Conclusion:
Hence, the Supreme Court would counter the argument by holding that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution and that such policy decisions can only be made by Parliament.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
