Assignment HR

“SUPRIYO VS UNION OF INDIA”
Submitted by: KHUSHI RAWAT
Enrolment No.: 22404521
Division: B
Semester/Year: IV/2nd
Batch: 2022-27
Lloyd Law College
Greater Noida
Under the guidance of:
Mr. Tushar Pal
(Assistant Professor)
Lloyd Law College
Greater Noida
PETITIONERS: - SUPRIYO CHAKRABORTY, ABHAY DANG,

PARTH PHIROZE MEHROTRA, UDAY RAJ ANAND
RESPONDENT: - UNION OF INDIA
INTRODUCATION AND FACTS
 On November 14, 2022, the case involved two gay couples: Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, Parth
Philoze Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand. Their application was amended under the provisions of Section 4(c)
of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which limits the persons to be married to "male" and "female".
 The petitioners argue that the ban discriminates against members of the opposite sex and deprives them of
the benefits of marriage, including adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement. They requested the
court to declare Section 4(c) of the Act invalid; this claim has been added to many other civil rights claims,
including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Foreign Exchange Act, on similar grounds. 1969.
 Their claims are supported by the belief that the rejection of same-sex marriage violates fundamental rights
to equality, freedom of expression and human dignity. They cited two important decisions to support their
claims: NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. Union of India (2018)
Not only recognizes homosexuality but also ensures equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians
 25 November 2022, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachur and Justice Seema Kohli, Appellate Division Bench,
Supreme Court. The decision enabled the organization to respond to a petition and paved the way for legal
advice on recognizing same-sex marriage in India.
 Moreover, similar petitions are pending in the Delhi and Kerala High Courts, reflecting growing awareness
about the right to same-sex marriage and equality for the LGBTQ+ community in India.
 On January 3, 2023, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy and Advocate Karuna Nundy appointed 2 judges
including CJI Chandrachur and Justice P.S. Narasimha appeared in two similar benches of Delhi and Kerala
High Court Judges. It was sent to the Supreme Court. At the meeting, it was decided that the revisions would
be made together with the main application on January 6, 2023.
 On January 6, 2023, Commissioner Judge D.Y. Chandrachur and Justices Narasimha and J.B.Pardiwala
referred to nine petitions pending before the Delhi and Kerala High Courts on similar issues.
 13 March 2023, Our bench of justice CJI D.Y. Chandrachur assigned the case to a five-judge bench and the
trial was scheduled to begin on April 18, 2023. On May 11, 2023, the five-judge panel overturned the
decision after a 10-day hearing. It is an important day to remember on October 17, 2023, when 5 judges will
decide on the application of LGBTQIA+ people seeking marriage equality, which is a very important
decision for the rights and freedoms of LGBTQIA+ people in India.
ISSUES
• Do members of the LGBTQIA+ community have the right to marry?
• If members of the LGBTQIA+ community have the right to marry, can SC speak on their behalf?
• Is the failure to address LGBTQIA+ marriages in the Special Marriage Act 1954 discrimination within the
meaning of Article 14?
RELEVANCY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

 Right to Information Act: The Right to Information Act, 2005 promotes transparency and accountability in
government institutions, which is an important part of human rights management. The importance of this
case is to determine whether the law can limit or enforce the right to information without affecting other
rights.
 Right to Freedom of Expression: The right to freedom and access to information is linked to Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India and various other instruments. International human rights provide for the right to
freedom of expression. Any limitation on the right to access information shall be in accordance with Article
19(2) and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.
 Privacy Act: RTI Act also deals with the right to privacy, especially when it comes to Disclosure of personal
information held by government authorities. Balancing the right to access information with the protection of
privacy is important to ensure that an individual's personal information is not compromised or exposed.
 Equality and non-discrimination: Human rights prohibit discrimination in law and freedom of access to
information. Any restrictions or regulations governing the right to information must be made without
discrimination and must not affect disadvantaged or disadvantaged groups.
 Access to Justice: The judiciary plays an important role in promoting human rights by ensuring justice and
providing effective solutions to crimes. Supriyo Ranjan Mondal v. The Union of India has contributed to the
development of legislation on human rights protection and enforcement mechanisms
JUDGEMENT
 The Supreme Court ruled by a 3-2 majority to legally recognize same-sex marriage. Many of our judges
refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. They stated that the marriage law is not a priority of the law and that
the decision on the legality of same-sex marriage is left to the judiciary. Moreover, most people believe that
Article 4(3) of the Special Law (Marriage Law) is an integral part of the law and does not violate the
fundamental rights of same-sex people. The main reason why same-sex couples believe they have other
legal options to meet their needs is social and community.
 Instead, Judge D.Y. disagree Chandrachud and Skokal think the opposite. They believe that the right to
marry should be considered a fundamental right. They also believe that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage
Act violates the fundamental rights of same-sex couples. The judge believes that the right to marry is an
important part of a person's right to life and personal freedom. They believe that same-sex couples should
have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. The split decision highlights the complexity and
controversy of the legal debate surrounding same-sex marriage. While most decisions leave the issue to the
law, the decision does not recognize the immediate granting of fundamental rights to all spouses, regardless
of gender or sexual orientation.

Assignment HR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment HR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment HR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“SUPRIYO VS UNION OF INDIA”

Submitted by: KHUSHI RAWAT

Enrolment No.: 22404521

Under the guidance of:

Mr. Tushar Pal

PETITIONERS: - SUPRIYO CHAKRABORTY, ABHAY DANG,

RELEVANCY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

You might also like