Understanding the chronology of the same-sex marriage case reaching India’s top courtroom

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday in a 3:2 majority held that the law does not recognise the right to marry or have civil union for same-sex couples.

The top court also said that it is up to the Parliament to make law for it.

The case is seen as a milestone event for LGBTQ rights in India, following a historic 2018 judgment by the Supreme Court that scrapped a colonial-era ban on gay sex.


"It lies within the domain of parliament and state legislatures to determine the law on marriage," CJI DY Chandrachud said during his verdict. "This court can't make law. It can only interpret it and give effect to it," he said.

Here is the complete chronology of events:

November 25, 2022: Two same-sex couples approached the Supreme Court to request the recognition of same-sex marriage within the framework of the Special Marriage Act. The petition argues for the Special Marriage Act to be rendered gender-neutral, and as a result, the Supreme Court issued notices to both the central government and the Attorney General.

December 14, 2022: The top court issued notices for a plea by another same-sex couple, consisting of an Indian and a US citizen, seeking recognition of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act. The Court consolidated similar cases from various high courts and scheduled a hearing for March 13, 2023, with a government response due by February 15.

March 12, 2023: The Centre filed an affidavit in apex court opposing the legal validation of same-sex marriage, saying it would cause a complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and in accepted societal values. At the same time it submitted that though the Centre limits its recognition to heterosexual relationships, there may be other forms of marriages or unions or personal understandings of relationships between individuals in a society and these "are not unlawful".

The Centre said the institution of marriage between two individuals of the same gender is neither recognised nor accepted in any uncodified personal laws or any codified statutory laws.

March 13, 2023: The Supreme referred the case to a Five-judge Constitution bench, underscoring the connection between statutory regulations and constitutional rights. The petitioners argued for more extensive constitutional privileges rooted in the rights to life, personal freedom, and dignity as defined in Articles 14, 19, and 21.

SC also directed that the proceedings of the hearing will have to be live-streamed on its website and YouTube.

April 1, 2023: “Same-sex marriage is an assault on the family system and goes against the personal laws of all religions recognizing the concept of marriage between a man and a woman,” said Muslim organisation Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind in an application opposing same-sex marriage applications in Supreme Court.

April 6, 2023: The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) submitted an intervention request in favour of both same-sex marriages and the adoption rights of same-sex couples.

April 17, 2023: Terming the petitions seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage as one which reflect an "urban elitist" view, the Centre told the Supreme Court that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function which the courts should refrain from deciding.

April 18, 2023: The apex court commenced hearing arguments in the matter.

April 27, 2023: The Supreme Court asked the Center to submit a response regarding the social advantages that can be extended to same-sex couples even without legally recognizing their marital status.

May 3, 2023: The Centre told the court it would constitute a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to examine the administrative steps that could be taken for addressing "genuine humane concerns" of same-sex couples without going into the issue of legalising their marriage.

May 11, 2023: While hearing the matter, the bench had observed it cannot give a declaration on same-sex unions on the anticipation as to how Parliament is likely to respond to it. The top court reserved its verdict in the matter.

The bench had made it clear during the arguments that it will not go into personal laws governing marriages while deciding the pleas seeking judicial validation for same-sex marriages and said the very notion of a man and a woman, as referred to in the Special Marriage Act, is not "an absolute based on genitals".

(With agency inputs)