In Supriyo v. Union of India (October 2023), the Supreme Court declined to legalize same-sex marriage, holding that recognition of such marriages involves complex policy considerations best left to Parliament, while affirming rights of queer couples to protection from discrimination and access to services.

Supriyo (2023) same-sex marriage case: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge Constitution Bench, 3:2 on key issues): (i) No fundamental right to marry under Constitution (though marriage protected under personal laws), (ii) Recognition of same-sex marriage involves complex policy considerations (adoption, succession, maintenance, social welfare) best left to Parliament, (iii) However, affirmed rights of queer couples: protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, access to services without discrimination, (iv) Directed government to form committee to examine rights/entitlements of queer couples, (c) Applications: (i) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (ii) Rights protection: Courts continue to protect queer rights through existing constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21), (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (d) Rationale: (i) Separation of powers: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values, (ii) Democratic legitimacy: Marriage recognition requires broad social consensus, legislative deliberation, not judicial fiat, (iii) Rights protection: Affirms core rights (non-discrimination, dignity) while deferring complex policy questions to legislature, (e) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain, activism in rights protection; balance between constitutional values and democratic legitimacy.