DR.

SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILITATION

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
Academic Session: 2023-2024

CASE DIARY
For

LLB 906: MOOT COURT, PRE-TRIAL-

TRAINING, INTERNSHIP

Submitted By

ANVESHA CHATURVEDI
B.Com.LL.B.(Hons.)

Roll No.: 194140013

Enrollment No.: SU1900000136

Submitted To

DR. GULAB RAI

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law

Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to my teacher DR.
GULAB RAI SIR who gave the golden opportunity to do this wonderful
project on the topic Case Diary on Civil and Criminal Case, which also
helped me in doing lots of research about the topic due to which, I came across
various new aspects about the topic. I am very much thankful to him.

Secondly, I want to thank my parents and my friends who supported me a lot

and helped me in completing this assignment within limited time frame.

Anvesha Chaturvedi

Semester IX

Roll No. 194140013

B.COM LL.B (HONS)

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
2|Page
 SR. NUMBER PARTICULSRS PAGE
NUMBER

1 Budhadev Karmaskar vs The State of West 4-5

Bengal & Ors.

2 Facts and Issues 5

3 Contentions of Parties 6-7

4 Judgement 7

5 Analysis 8

6 Conclusion 9

7 Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. vs. 10

Union of India

Introduction

8 Facts 11

9 Related Provisions and Issue 11-15

10 Contentions of Parties 15-16

11 Rationale & Analysis 17-18

12 Conclusion 19

INDEX

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

3|Page
 Budhadev Karmaskar vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 135 OF 2010

Budhadev Karmaskar ..... Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of West Bengal & Ors. ..... Respondent

Citation: AIR (2022) SCC OnLine SC 704.

Decided: 19 May 2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageshwara Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble
Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

Introduction

Every person in India has fundamental rights that are guaranteed in the Indian Constitution
but due to social stigma, discrimination, and exploitation of some sectors in the society, their
rights are violated as they need to be reclaimed with the help of judiciary intervention. The
dignity of sex workers has attracted conscious attention in recent years. Prostitution is
regarded as one of the oldest professions as a prolonged cruel or regular practice in India. The
Criminalization of sex workers falls outside the wall of judiciary protection. Although they
encounter “venereal disease” and “source for other crimes” that becomes the core point of
criminalizing sex work. It is based on moral and social belief that sex work should not be
practiced without emotions. This is controversial due to a behavioral gap between the
generations. The view on prostitutes was changed in the case of Budhadev Karmaskar vs the
State of West Bengal is a specific instance of this. In this case 1, Criminal appeal no.135 was
initiated in the High Court of Calcutta in 2004 for the murder of a prostitute. The Supreme
Court took Suo-moto2 and converted the issue into Public Interest Litigation to address the
problems faced by the workers. This became the landmark judgment for the protection of sex
workers, and prostitutes giving a wider scope of interpretation to Article 21 of the Indian
1
State of west Bengal vs Bhudhadev karmaskar MANU/SC/0881/2011

2
Budhadev Karmaskar vs state of west Bengal on 19 may 2022 (n 3)
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
4|Page
constitution. Sex workers and their offspring’s right to live with dignity was interpreted and
A constitutional panel was constructed and directed a few recommendations to safeguard and
rehabilitate the sex worker’s life

Facts:

On September 17th, 1999, Chayay Rani Pal Alias Buri was a 45-year-old sex worker living in
a red-light area in Calcutta. Budhadev Karmasker who was an appellant kicked and battered
her head with fists and legs3 and she fell to the first floor for her refusal to have sexual
intercourse with him while she was sleeping near the staircase on the second floor of her
residence.

The appellant brutally attacked her by dragging her hair and banging her head against the
floor and the wall multiple times. This led to bleeding from the ear, nose, and head and 11
injuries in her body and resulted in the brutal death of Buri sparse reason of protecting her
dignity.

The brutal incident was eye-witnessed by Abida, Pa Parvati, and Asha. Abida saw the
appellant while he dragged her hair against the wall and she shouted for help and informed
police but Budhadev pushed and assaulted her and escaped from the place. Parvati and Asha
saw the victim being brutally beaten by the accused in a barbaric manner. Then Buri was
brought to hospital by Asha and others where she was found to be dead on arrival. The
accused was arrested within 5 hours of the incident and convicted of murdering a sex worker.

Issue Raised:

1. How the scope of Article 21 and the meaning of ‘life’ be interpreted to ensure that the
right to a dignified existence is available to sex workers and that their offspring have
access to the right to live with dignity?
2. Is it possible for the accused to be charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code?
3. What is the Constitutional validity of Section 8 of the West Bengal Prevention of
Immoral Trafficking Act, 1950?
4. How to safeguard the sex workers, and rescue and rehabilitate them into safer
environments?
3
Bhudhadev karmaskar vs state of west Bengal on 14 February ,2011
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
5|Page
Contentions of Petitioner or Appellant:

1. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently denied all the charges
framed by the prosecution.
2. The learned advocate submiited that the statement made by the eye-witness, Asha
Khatun during the examination-in-chief cannot be admissible under section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734 as she did not turn up during the cross-
examination.
3. To substantiate the same, the learned advocate relied upon the case of Raghuvir
Singh v State of Uttaranchal.5
4. It was also submitted that none of the residents of the area where the crime took place
were summoned as witnesses. Owing to this reason, the learned advocate wanted to
cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story.

Contentions of Respondent or Prosecution:

1. The prosecution case suggested that the relationship between the deceased and the
accused were sour and they quarrelled at intervals.
2. The prosecution case produced the injury report made by a competent physician that
stated that the deceased was beaten by the accused through fists and legs.
3. The report also found that there was a total of eleven injuries in various parts of the
face and forehead that resulted in her death.
4. The prosecution contended that eight out of eleven injuries were sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.

Legal Aspects of the case:

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution:8

The fundamental right to live with dignity is incorporated in the constitution that every
human being should be respected with individual dignity and not survive in a mere vegetative
state unless the procedures are established by the law.

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956:

4
Criminal Procedure Code,1973,section 164
5
Raghuvir Singh & others vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr (C-482) no.2324 of 2019
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
6|Page
Section 3- Brothel is illegal and punishable under law.

Section 4 – Earning money by prostitution is illegal

Section 8- Seducing people in public places for prostitution is illegal.6

Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – The witness is asked any question during
the cross-examination to check the credibility of the statement.7

Judgment:

The judgment held both the High Court of Calcutta and The Supreme Court of India
sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court also took Suo-moto for
addressing the problems of sex workers by converting the suit into Public Interest Litigation.
A Commission under the senior advocate Mr. Pradip Ghosh as the Chairman was formed to
address the issue. The Constitutional panel has recommended the SC approve an aid package
of 10 lakhs from the Centre and 5 lakhs from the State and 2 lakhs from Union territories for
teaching technical skills and supporting the sex workers and their progeny to live with
dignity. The court interpreted Article 21 of the constitution to include life with dignity as the
judgment states “ no matter of the profession, every individual in this country has a
right….under Article 21”8.They also pointed out that women in India are compelled and
pushed into prostitution because their economic conditions are down and they are easy targets
for the traffickers for sexual acts that are against their will and become a Fateful job. To
eradicate it needs progressive steps to become successful and for the rehabilitation of sex
workers. So, the 3-judges bench consisting of L. Nageswara, B.R . Gavai, and A.S. Bopanna
issued an order on 19th May 2022 by Article 142 of its discretionary power to Centre and
state9 to follow these recommendations10 on 19th May 22 as stated below:

1. Quick medical remedial measures to be provided to sex workers, if any sexual assault
happens to them as per section 357C of CrPC.

6
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, section 3, section 4, section 8.
7
Criminal Procedure code, 1973, section 164.
8
Budhadev Karmaskar vs the state of west Bengal, (2022) criminal Appeal No(s).135/2010.
9
Constitution of India,1950, art 142
10
Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of west Bengal,2022 SCC online SC 704
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
7|Page
2. Duty of the State to survey all types of Immoral trafficking under Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) act 1956.
3. Rescued women from the field should be provided protective homes.

4. The police officers and other government bodies should be sensible to the sex workers
and not harass them during raids and investigations.

5. The Press Council is directed to follow the guidelines because their identities should
be private.

6. Criminal action is not made if consent is given by sex workers.

7. The use of contraceptives by them must not be considered a crime or evidence for any
commission of crime.

8. Only the brothel owner can be arrested not the sex worker.

9. A recommendation committee is to be constructed to prevent child sex workers.

10. The transgender community can also work as sex workers to earn money.

This Judgement paved the way for sex workers to live with dignity, it is their fundamental
right, and if it is deprived, they can claim their right for violation

Analysis:

This judgment gave a way to uplift the life of sex workers in the whole of India but still, there
is social stigma and discrimination among the societies that should not be forgotten. They are
also human beings, are entitled to dignity, and must be respected. Article 21 of the Indian
constitution protects the right to live with dignity and not the life of an animal. They are often
affected by ‘sexually transmitted diseases’ (STD) and tortured by brothel owners and
customers to red-light areas that give them earnings. If they are given vocational or technical
training, they could be able to exit from sex work and develop the skills to earn in other ways
because they are just selling their bodies for their livelihood. 11 Supreme Court directed the
Centre and State to constitute training programs for the rehabilitation of sex workers. The
Constitutional panel directed 10 recommendations to protect the interests of prostitutes. It
refers to the Prevention of sex trafficking and rehabilitation of the persons leaving sex work

11
State of west Bengal vs Bhudhadev karmaskar MANU/SC/0881/2011
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
8|Page
and prostitution is also a profession and condition laid down for the workers to live with
dignity. Many sex workers are still without voter IDs cannot cast their vote and are treated in
a bad manner. There is a taboo on the prostitution profession that they profess. In many cases,
traffickers trade women for sexual activities without their will and consent due to poverty.
Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 prohibits prostitution as illegal and penalizes the
law who practice it which restricts their freedom of trade. In the case of Kausalya vs state of
Uttar Pradesh (1964), the Allahabad High Court held Section 20 of the Immoral Traffic
Prevention Act violates Article 14, Article 14(d), and Article 19(1(e)) of the Indian
constitution. The Act was held valid since the difference between a public and sex worker's
nuisance is observable and obvious.12 The defect of the law is seen in this act so the
Provisions of this act need to be updated, and amended. Section 8 of the Immoral Trafficking
(Prevention) Act, of 1956 violates the fundamental right of the Indian constitution that gives
punishment for professing this profession. In the case of Kajal & Ors vs State of
Maharashtra (2020), the Bombay Court held that sex work is not illegal and a crime under
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 195613and the woman has the right to choose her
profession. The formation of a panel to recommend safeguarding the rights of prostitutes by
progressive steps that are directed to central and state governments to provide proper
education and vocational training.14 The UJMALA scheme was discussed in the judgment
that is applied to rescue women from traffickers’ peddlers. 15 Aadhar IDs and voter IDs should
be provided to them so that they can claim their rights. The Supreme Court ordered the
UIDAI to issue Aadhar cards without pointing out their proof of residence to them. The order
issued by the Supreme Court focuses on the rehabilitation of sex workers to live with dignity
under Article 21. The court ordered these reforms under Article 142 of the Indian constitution
that provides a special power to the Supreme Court to give ‘complete justice’. Thus,
Prostitution is legal in India, and sex workers have the right to profess their job with their
consent and live with dignity.

Conclusion:

12
Kausalya vs state of Uttar pradessh,1964 AIR 416
13
Kajal Singh and ors vs state of maharastra,2020 SCC 954
14
Budhadev karmaskar vs state of west Bengal <https:// corpbiz.io> accessed on 15 December 2023
15
Parinaz Fanibanda, Case Analysis of Bhudhadev Karmaskar vs state of west Bengal, Pro-Bono India,
Accessed 14 December 2023.
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
9|Page
The Accused Bhudhadev Karmaskar was convicted to life imprisonment for the murder of a
sex worker in this case. The Supreme Court through Public interest litigation addressed
various issues related to problems faced by the sex workers and The Constitution panel was
framed under the direction of the Supreme Court and ordered the Centre and State to look
after the sex workers by various reforms. Abolishing prostitution practices would not
eradicate the plight of sex workers but only worsen their conditions of them variously. This
judgment is eye-opening for sex workers and prevention of trafficking is discussed in the
panel. The constitution panel referred to significant factors to protect the interest of sex
workers such as prevention of sex trafficking and rehabilitation for those who unlike sex
work and prostitution also have a profession and condition laid down for the workers to live
with dignity. Some provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, of 1956 need to be
amended as to the current society. Sex work is recognized as a profession and women have
the right to choose their profession and live with dignity. Legalizing prostitution gives both
negative and positive consequences but rules and regulations that govern proper
administration are needed for the protection of sex workers and, their offspring.
Safeguarding, rescuing and, rehabilitation of workers who are leaving the profession allows
the women to live without fear of the traffickers. They should be respected in the society.
Through this case, the voice raised the voice was heard by the court, and justice was
provided.

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

10 | P a g e
 Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. vs. Union of India

W.P. (C) No. 1011/2022 Diary No. 36593/2022

Supriyo Chakraborty, Abhay Dang, Parth Phiroze Mehrotra, Uday Raj Anand
..... Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Union of India ..... Respondent

Citation: AIR 2023 INSC 920.

Decided: 17th October 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice S.K. Kaul, Hon’ble Justice
S.R. Bhatt, Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli, Hon’ble Justice P.S. Narsimha

Introduction

Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India16 is a landmark legal case that brought to the forefront
significant issues related to the recognition of same-sex marriages and the rights of the
LGBTQIA+ community in India. The legal process underwent a significant transformation
with the landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 17, where Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code18 was decriminalized in 2018. With decriminalization of section 377,
the rights of LGBTQ individuals were recognized and affirmed, including the right to marry.
This pivotal decision marked a departure from the colonial-era law that criminalized
consensual same-sex relations this brought an expectation and anticipation regarding the
marital rights of the LGBTQ community. This case revolves around the constitutional
validity of certain provisions, particularly those in the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and
addresses broader questions concerning the fundamental rights of individuals in non-
heteronormative relationships. However, the judgement resulted in a split opinion
acknowledging the right to form a union though not the right to marry. Several questions
were raised about the judiciary’s role in societal transformation its connection with the
16
Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India, 2023 INSC 920: W.P. (C) No. 1011/2022
17
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, 2012 6 SCC 1.
18
Indian Penal Code 1860, sec 377
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
11 | P a g e
legislative policy and interpretive processes in constitutional adjudication. Thus, the case
acted as a specific parameter for various legal paradoxes.

Facts:

This case has been in highlight since the beginning of 2023, the facts of the case involved a
writ petitions being filed by the two same-sex couples at the Supreme Court on November
14th, 2022. Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang were the first petitioners for the case.
Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj Anand filed the second petition. The petitioners
challenged the validity of Section 4 (c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on that ground that
the provision discriminates against same sex couple by denying them benefits such as
adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits. The Supreme Court transferred
similar petitions to itself which were pending before High Courts. These other Petitions
challenged the enactments including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Foreign Marriage
Act, 1969. On March 13th, 2023, a 3-Judge Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud referred the
case to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. On May 11th, 2023, the 5-Judge Bench reserved
judgment after 10 days of hearings. On October 17th, 2023, the 5-Judge Bench pronounced
its verdict on petitions seeking marriage equality for LGBTQIA+ persons.

Issues:

 Whether Supreme Court is vested with authority to hear this case?

The Union Government contented that the Supreme Court deciding upon the question of
same sex couple’s right to marry would amount to violation of Doctrine of Separation of
Power and would lead to the Apex Court encroaching upon the legislative domain. The CJI
DY Chandrachud while opining upon this issue noted upon the importance of Judicial
Review and observed that the Supreme Court is well within its power to decide upon this
question. Justice Bhat disagreed with the CJI and held that “court may feel the wisdom of a
measure or norm that is lacking”, it must be careful to not venture into the powers and
functions that are constitutionally awarded to other “departments and organs to
discharge”19.Though the impact of the lack of legal entitlements to queer persons is
discriminatory, the Court cannot “fashion a parallel legal regime, comprising of defined
entitlements and obligations” which would be required in this case.
19
Supriya Chakraborty & Another v. Union of India, (26 November 2023,
09:34:56), https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/supriya-chakraborty-anr-v-union-of-india#
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
12 | P a g e
  Is there a Fundamental Right to marry?

The court gave unanimous decision upon this issue that the Right to marry does not fall under
the ambit of Fundamental Right. CJI Chandrachud held that “the Constitution does not
expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry”.20 He pointed out that the laws relating to
the institution of marriage are enacted by the Parliament. State legislatures are permitted to
make amendments to such laws. He highlighted that some state legislatures who “have not
created an institution of marriage in exercise of their powers…would be obligated to create
an institution because of the positive postulate encompassed in the right to marry.” Justice
S.R. Bhat agreed with the CJI and Justice Narasimha added that marriage is a fundamental
freedom, not a right.

 Do queer couples have right to marry?

The 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on this question. The verdict
delivered by 3:2 ratio denied that there exists a right for queer couples to get married. Justice
DY Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul ruled in favour of the queer couples. Justice Bhat,
Justice Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli gave the majority opinion. Justice Bhat leading the
majority opinion held that all queer persons have the right to relationship and choice of
partner, cohabit and live together, as an integral part of choice.” This is already recognised
under Article 21. “Ordering a social institution” would require a completely different legal
framework with “new universe of rights and obligations.” Justice Bhat noted that this would
require a separate regime for registration of the civil union, laying down the conditions of a
valid union, setting eligibility, age, restrictions, divorce, alimony and a bouquet of other
rights that are ancillary to marriage. The state is not obliged to recognize this “bouquet
of entitlements”.

 Can transgender persons in heterosexual relationships marry under existing

laws?

CJI Chandrachud held that a transgender person in a heterosexual relationship is entitled to

marry after a “harmonious interpretation” of existing marriage laws and the Transgender
Persons Act. He reasoned that marriage laws in India permit marriages arising out of
heterosexual relationships. The existing laws such as the SMA or other personal laws

20
Supriya Chakraborty & Another v. Union of India, (26 November 2023,
09:34:56), https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/supriya-chakraborty-anr-v-union-of-india#
Case Study on Criminal and Civil case
13 | P a g e
describe a marital relationship between a “man” and a “woman”, “husband” and a “wife”,
and “bride and a bridegroom”. If such is restricted, it would violate the Transgender Persons
Act which prohibits discrimination of transgender persons. Further, he stated that a person is
a transgender person by “virtue of their gender identity”, and it is not their
“sexual orientation”.

 Can unmarried and queer couples adopt?

The Petitioners had also challenged Petitioners had challenged Regulation 5(3) of the 2020
Central Adoption Resource Authority Guidelines which restricts adoption to single
individuals and married couples who are in a stable marital relationship for two years.
Section 57(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandated
that both spouses had to consent for adoption. The 5 Judge bench gave a split verdict (3:2) on
this question and held that queer couples are not entitled to adopt a child. Justice Bhat leading
the majority opinion held that Section 57(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 clearly states marriage as a prerequisite to adopt a child. He also
observed that “This framework ensures that if one parent abandons the relationship, the other
can maintain themselves and the child – a remedy that a couple with no legal recognition is
deprived of. Justice Bhat clarified that though a married couple is not a “morally superior
choice”. However, the adoption framework takes into account the “protections and
entitlements, [which] flow from the institution of marriage.” The “guiding principle” of the JJ
Act is the best interest of the child, “not to enable adoption for all”. Justice Bhat also noted
upon the rights of queer couple and noted that “State arguably has an even more urgent need
to enable the full gamut of rights” to queer parents and children. The state needs to “ensure
that the maximum welfare and benefits reach the largest number of children in need of safe
and secure homes with a promise for their fullest development,”.

 Is the Special Marriage Act, 1954 unconstitutional?

Deciding upon this question CJI Chandrachud held that declaring the SMA as “void” would
“take India back to the pre-independence era” where inter-caste and inter-faith relationships
were impermissible. “Such a judicial verdict would not only have the effect of taking the
nation back to the era when it was clothed in social inequality and religious intolerance but
would also push the courts to choose between eradicating one form of discrimination and
prejudice at the cost of permitting another.” Justice Bhat noted that the “sole intention” of the

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

14 | P a g e
SMA was to “facilitate marriage between persons professing different faiths”. At the time
that the law was made, consensual sexual relations between persons of the same sex remained
prohibited, and moreover, not the focus of the law. He held that “as long as an objective [of a
law] is clearly discernible, it cannot be attacked merely because it does not make a better
classification.”

Contentions of Petitioner or Appellant:

1. The petitioners presented a compelling argument based on a series of legal principles

and precedents. They contended that the exclusion of couples from sexual and gender
minority communities from marriage laws violated fundamental rights, particularly
highlighting the issues with notice and objection provisions in the Special Marriage
Act and Foreign Marriage Act. By invoking Article 32 of the Indian Constitution,
which empowers the Supreme Court to safeguard fundamental rights, they asserted
their right to approach the court.

2. Under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the right to equality, the
Supreme Court’s pronouncement that any law failing to protect an individual’s self-
determination of sexual orientation and gender identity is irrational and arbitrary was
cited. Furthermore, the concept of substantive equality was recognized in cases like
Lt. Col. Nitisha v. UOI and Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal,
emphasizing equal protection under the law for atypical families, including
relationships between sexual and gender minority individuals.

 Building upon the Supreme Court’s establishment of fundamental rights for sexual
and gender minority individuals in NLSA v. UOI, Puttaswamy v. UOI, and Navtej
Singh Johar v. UOI, the petitioners sought to extend the right to marry and establish a
family to these communities based on multiple constitutional articles.

 The argument also drew strength from High Court decisions, such as the Madras High
Court’s ruling in Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, which declared
that the refusal to register the marriage between a Hindu cisgender man and a Hindu
transgender woman violated fundamental rights as guaranteed under various articles
of the Indian Constitution.

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

15 | P a g e
Contentions of Respondent:

1. The concept of marriage inherently assumes a union between individuals of opposite

genders, deeply entrenched in our social, cultural, and legal fabric. This definition
should remain untouched by judicial interpretation, with any potential alterations
reserved for competent legislative bodies.

2. The nature of marriage varies based on personal laws. Among Hindus, it’s a sacred
sacrament, emphasizing mutual duties between a man and a woman. In Islam, it’s a
contract, yet still restricted to a biological man and woman. Requesting the court to
alter this long-standing legislative policy, deeply rooted in religious and societal
norms, would be impermissible.

3. Despite the decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the Petitioners
cannot assert a fundamental right to have same-sex marriages recognized under the
country’s laws. This has been explicitly clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, where it stated that
while individuals have a right to union under Article 21 of the Constitution, it doesn’t
necessarily mean marriage.

 Marriage in India, as recognized by personal and codified laws such as the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and others, is a union between a
biological man and a biological woman. This institution carries significant social and
legal implications, extending beyond mere recognition. Family matters, which
encompass rights and responsibilities, are distinct from the legal recognition of same-
sex marriage.

 Registering marriages between same-sex individuals would also violate existing

personal and codified laws, including regulations concerning prohibited relationships,
conditions of marriage, ceremonial and ritual requirements, and more. The legislative
framework surrounding marriage, divorce, alimony, and related matters is exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the Legislature.

 The legislative understanding of marriage in India is explicit – it is a union between a

biological man and a biological woman. This definition is evident in various statutes,
personal laws, and penal laws, which use specific terms like “husband” and “wife,”

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

16 | P a g e
 “male” and “female,” “bride” and “bridegroom,” among others. This reflects the clear
legislative policy in India, and it’s not within the Court’s purview to change this
policy.

Rationale :

In a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court reached a significant verdict regarding the legal
recognition of same-sex marriage. The majority, comprising three judges, declined to grant
legal recognition to same-sex marriages. They asserted that the right to marry is not
inherently a fundamental right, emphasizing that it falls under the purview of Parliament to
make determinations regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage .Furthermore, the
majority judges maintained that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, a key piece of
legislation in question, does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of same-sex couples.
Their rationale Centered around the belief that same-sex couples possess alternative legal
avenues, such as live-in relationships and civil partnerships, which adequately address their
needs.

In contrast, the dissenting judges, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, held a
contrary viewpoint. They firmly asserted that the right to marry should indeed be regarded as
a fundamental right. Furthermore, they argued that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act
does indeed violate the fundamental rights of same-sex couples. In the dissenting judges’
perspective, the right to marry is an integral aspect of an individual’s right to life and
personal liberty. They contended that same-sex couples should enjoy the same marriage
rights as their heterosexual Counter Part . This divided ruling underscores the complex and
contentious nature of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage in the legal landscape. The
majority’s decision entrusts the matter to legislative action, while the dissenting judges
advocate for the immediate recognition of the fundamental right to marry for all couples,
irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.

Inference

At the outset, it is evident that the institution of marriage in India has evolved significantly
from its historical roots. Practices that were once entrenched such as child marriage, sati and
denial of widow remarriage have been unequivocally condemned and outlawed. This
establishes that marriage is a dynamic institution that must keep pace with the changing

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

17 | P a g e
social ethos of inclusiveness, equality and dignity for all. It is also clear from the various
perspectives shared in this case that there exists no universal definition of marriage. Different
communities, religions and personal laws in India perceive marriage in diverse ways. As long
as certain basic prerequisites are fulfilled under applicable statutes, a marriage is valid
regardless of the presence or absence of other characteristics. This allows couples the
flexibility to define the contours of their relationship while still availing of the legal benefits
of a union A crucial takeaway is that the Constitution does not mandate a uniform concept of
marriage or restrict the legislature’s role in regulating relationships. However, any restrictions
imposed by the State must have a legitimate basis and not violate the fundamental rights of
citizens. Specifically, the rights to life, liberty, equality, freedom of expression and dignity
enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 cannot be abridged due to one’s sexual orientation or
gender identity. The deliberations have clarified that same-sex relationships and transgender
identities are natural phenomena that have historically existed in India. They cannot be
dismissed as so-called ‘Western Imports’. When individuals from diverse social, economic
and educational backgrounds provide accounts of their queerness in different parts of the
country, it shows that this is not an urban phenomenon either. The denial of legal recognition
to same-sex and transgender unions amounts to unconstitutional discrimination. It is evident
that substantive directives are necessary from the Court to address violations of fundamental
rights, rather than just striking down laws. Positive obligations must be cast upon the State to
emancipate the LGBTQIA+ community from the shackles of deep-rooted social oppression.
Comprehensive legal reform is required to ensure equality, dignity and non-discrimination in
accessing all benefits associated with marriage. However, the nuanced policy considerations
involved in restructuring statutory frameworks are best addressed through consultative
processes in the legislature and executive. In conclusion, a balanced approach is imperative.
While protecting basic rights and rectifying clear violations, due regard must be given to the
legitimate roles of the other organs of the State. The judiciary cannot assume the function of
enacting comprehensive legal reforms but has to enable participatory and inclusive
democratic governance in line with constitutional values of justice, liberty, equality and
fraternity.

Conclusion:

The nuanced decision of the Supreme Court in Supriya Chakraborty case, while refraining
right to marry as a fundamental right which have a far-sighted inference for the LGBTQIA+

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

18 | P a g e
community. This specific case holds both a challenge and a promise for the community.
While discriminations imposed on the queer individuals the court proposed a measure for the
protection and put an end for recognizing civil unions as “positive obligation” of the state.
The significance lies on the catalyst for ongoing discussions on LGBTQIA+ rights in the
legal arena. The ultimate hope for LGBTQIA+ rights rests with the parliament whereas the
court acknowledges the limitation of judicial intervention in matter relating to legislative
action. Thus the case urges the lawmakers to address human rights and ensure equality and
dignity for all, regardless of sexual orientation.

Case Study on Criminal and Civil case

19 | P a g e