Marriage, Identity, and Equality: The Unfinished Constitutional Promise for LGBTQ+ Community

Abstract

 The constitutional promise of equality, dignity, liberty, and personal autonomy remains an unfinished project for the LGBTQ+ community in India, particularly in relation to marriage and identity rights. This paper examines the evolving legal and constitutional position of LGBTQ+ persons in India, with particular emphasis on the relationship between gender identity, sexual orientation, marriage, and substantive equality. It traces the historical and legal development of LGBTQ+ rights from the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to its partial decriminalization in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, while examining the transformative significance of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA) in recognizing gender identity as an essential component of dignity, autonomy, and constitutional citizenship. The paper further analyses the constitutional dimensions of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 and evaluates the extent to which recognition of self-identified gender can facilitate access to marriage and associated civil rights. Particular attention is given to Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, which recognized the validity of a marriage involving a transgender woman under the Hindu Marriage Act, and Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court declined to constitutionally recognize same-sex marriage and emphasized the role of the legislature in determining the legal institution of marriage. The paper highlights the continuing gap between recognition of identity and realization of substantive marital rights, including inheritance, adoption, succession, and family-related entitlements. It also examines international approaches to LGBTQ+ marriage and identity rights through the legal frameworks of South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, Thailand, and the United States. The study argues that recognition of gender identity, although constitutionally significant, cannot by itself ensure complete equality unless accompanied by comprehensive legislative reform. It recommends gender-neutral marriage laws, stronger protection against discrimination and violence, institutional sensitization, social awareness, and inclusive legal frameworks governing marriage, adoption, inheritance, succession, and divorce. The paper concludes that the constitutional commitment to equality can be meaningfully fulfilled only when LGBTQ+ relationships and identities receive substantive legal protection and equal recognition within the framework of dignity, autonomy, and constitutional citizenship.