Recognition of same-sex unions in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships, but provides some limited legal recognition to cohabiting same-sex couples in the form of live-in relationships.[1][2] Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples.[3][4] The Supreme Court of India in August 2022 provided social security rights to those in same-sex live-in relationships while also recognising same-sex couples as being part of a "family unit".[5]

In October 2023, the Supreme Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage or civil unions and left the matter up to the Parliament or the state legislatures to decide.[6][7] Despite the legal requirement to register all marriages with the government, the majority of Hindu marriages are not registered with the government and are instead conducted through unwritten common law.[8][9][10]

Since the 2010s, courts in several states, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, have ruled on an individual basis that live-in relationships between same-sex couples are not unlawful and entitled to legal protection. This has often only entailed limited inheritance benefits or police protection from family. Courts have also recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar-type contractual relationships.

Live-in relationships[edit]

Couples in "live-in relationships" are not married to each other but live together as a cohabiting couple. Live-in relationships tend to be viewed by Indian society as taboo, but have become gradually more common among the younger population in light of the slow decline of arranged marriages. Unlike marriages, live-in relationships are not regulated by law and lack a robust, legally protected system. No law lays down the rights, benefits and commitments for parties in a live-in relationship. However, court judgments and various pieces of legislation offer various rights to such couples. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 grants domestic violence protections to women who live in a "relationship in the nature of marriage". Courts have interpreted this expression as covering live-in relationships. Following amendments in the early 2000s, the term "wife" under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 includes women who have been in live-in relationships for a "sensible period of time" for the purpose of alimony.[11] In 2020, the Orissa High Court ruled in Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha that women in live-in relationships are protected under the 2005 domestic violence law similarly to different-sex cohabiting couples.[12]

Since the 2010s, courts in several states, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, have ruled on an individual basis that live-in relationships between same-sex couples are not unlawful and entitled to legal protection. This has often only entailed limited inheritance benefits or police protection from family. Courts have also recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar-type contractual relationships. On 16 August 2022, the Supreme Court of India ruled in Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Others that familial relationships may take the form of opposite-sex live-in relationships and same-sex relationships, and that such "atypical manifestations" of the family unit are equally deserving of social security benefits.[13][14] In addition, a number of companies provide services to cohabiting same-sex couples, including financial benefits,[15] and health care benefits.[16]

Federal marriage laws[edit]

The following acts cover India's marriage laws:

On 1 April 2022, MP Supriya Sule from the Nationalist Congress Party introduced a bill to the Lok Sabha to legalise same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The proposal would amend various sections of the Act to provide same-sex couples with the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. The bill would fix the marriageable age at 21 for gay couples and at 18 for lesbian couples.[22][23] No action was taken on the bill.

Uniform Civil Code[edit]

In 2017, a draft of a uniform civil code to legalise same-sex marriage was proposed by a group of citizens.[24] Under the proposed code, marriage was defined as "the legal union as prescribed under this Act of a man with a woman, a man with another man, a woman with another woman, a transgender with another transgender or a transgender with a man or a woman". A partnership was similarly defined as the "living together of a man with a woman, a man with another man, a woman with another woman, a transgender with another transgender or a transgender with a man or a woman". It provided that any two persons who have been in a partnership for more than two years shall have the same rights and obligations as married couples, and mandated that all marriages be registered with the state. The draft stated that "all married couples and couples in a partnership are entitled to adopt a child. The sexual orientation of the married couple or the partners are not to be a bar to their right to adoption. Non-heterosexual couples will be equally entitled to adopt a child." Finally, the code provided for the repeal of all of India's marriage-related laws (the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, The Indian Christian Marriage Act, among others). The draft was submitted to the Law Commission of India for consideration.

Whether India should adopt the Uniform Civil Code is a matter of ongoing political debate.[25] The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supports a uniform civil code and was the first party in India to do so.[26] The Law Commission began soliciting public views and requests on the issue on 19 March 2018, and later extended the deadline for opinions to 6 May 2018.[27] Muslim groups oppose a uniform civil code because such a code would ban triple talaq, polygamy and would not be based on Sharia law, unlike current Muslim personal law, which governs Indian Muslims.[28] The Law Commission of India stated on 31 August 2018 that a uniform civil code is "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" in a 185-page consultation paper.[29] In February 2020, Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that "presently there is no proposal to legalise same-sex marriage", adding that the Union Government was not considering the issue.[30] In September 2023, media reported that the Law Commission had excluded same-sex marriages from a draft uniform civil code.[31]

State and territory laws[edit]

Laws regarding homosexuality in Asia
Same-sex sexual activity legal
  Marriage performed
  Other type of partnership
  Legislation or binding domestic court ruling establishing same-sex marriage, but no supporting legislation has been passed
  Legal guardianships or unregistered cohabitation
  Limited foreign recognition (residency rights)
  No recognition of same-sex couples
  Restrictions on freedom of expression
Same-sex sexual activity illegal
  Prison but not enforced
  Prison
  Death penalty on books, but not enforced
  Enforced death penalty

Further complicating matters, the states and union territories of India have their own laws with regard to the registration of marriages and marriages contracted under indigenous customs and rites. In February 2006, the Supreme Court of India ruled in Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar that the states and union territories are obliged to register all marriages performed under the federal laws. The court's ruling was expected to reduce instances of child marriages, bigamy, domestic violence and unlawful abandonment. However, a majority of Hindu marriages performed in India are not registered with the government despite registration being mandatory, and are instead conducted through unwritten common law.[32] Several same-sex couples have held traditional Hindu marriage ceremonies throughout India since the late 1980s, but these marriages lack legal recognition.[33][34] Family reactions range from support to disapproval to violent persecution.[35]

In Supriyo v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the legislatures of the states and union territories may legalise same-sex marriage in the absence of federal legislation.[36]

Andaman and Nicobar Islands[edit]

In 1958, the Chief Commissioner published the Andaman And Nicobar Islands Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1958, commonly known as the Marriage Rules,[a] requiring the registration of all Hindu marriages performed in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.[38] The Rules do not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, but generally assume married spouses to be "husband and wife". The Marriage Officier has also been instructed to register all marriages in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Seema, including marriages performed under the SMA.[39]

Andhra Pradesh[edit]

In 2002, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature (which consists of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly) passed the Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002, which was later signed into law by Governor C. Rangarajan. The Act defines marriage as "all marriages performed by persons belonging to any caste or religion and also the marriages performed as per any custom, practices or any traditions including the marriages performed in the tribal areas and the word 'marriage' also includes 'remarriage'".[40] The Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride and bridegroom".[40]

In October 2007, two women got married in a temple in Visakhapatnam in the presence of the mother of one of the brides and another witness. The two women were workers in a church and they exchanged bibles in accordance with local Christian custom. When the church found out about their relationship, they were dismissed from their jobs.[41] On 18 December 2021, two men, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, were married in a Hindu ceremony in Hyderabad, the de jure capital of Andhra Pradesh, making "it the first gay wedding in the Telugu States".[42] Their wedding was attended by family members and close friends. "Our parents weren't initially the most supportive. However, they also didn't disapprove of it either. They decided to give us and themselves a good amount of time to introspect and come to a better conclusion. Now, we have their acceptance.", Chakraborty said.[43] The marriage is not legally recognised.[44] In August 2022, a lesbian couple were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Srikalahasti, though the marriage lacks legal recognition. One of the women had previously been married to a man, but after meeting each other they decided to elope. They later asked for police protection in Vempalle.[45]

Shiva-shakti (Telugu: శివ-శక్తి, pronounced [ˈçiʋa ˈçakt̪i]) are a hijra community living in Andhra Pradesh. Every autumn during a three-day festival performed across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, they are married to a sword that represents male power or Shiva, becoming the brides of the sword.[46] One of the avatars of Shiva, a central figure in Hinduism, is Ardhanarishvara, who is depicted as half-man and half-woman, representing Shiva united with his shakti. The shiva-shakti identify with this form of Shiva and worship at Shiva temples. The religious meaning of the shiva-shakti role is expressed in several Hindu stories, including those of Arjuna, Shiva, Bahuchara Mata and Krishna. Most people in this community belong to lower socio-economic status and live as astrologers, soothsayers, and spiritual healers.[47]

Arunachal Pradesh[edit]

In 2008, the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Arunachal Pradesh Recording of Marriage Act, 2008, which was later signed into law by Governor J. J. Singh. The Act does not explicitly ban same-sex marriage and defines marriage simply as including remarriage.[48] The Act generally refers to married spouses as "the male partner" and "the female partner".

Arranged marriage is the dominant form of marriage in many tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, including the Nyishi, Hruso, Wancho, and Galo peoples.[b] While some of these cultures also practice, or historically practiced, polygyny, they are no known occurrences of same-sex marriages as understood from a Western perspective being performed in these cultures.[49]

Assam[edit]

Participants at Queer Pride Guwahati campaigning for LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, 2021

The Government of Assam has fully complied with the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar by amending the Hindu Marriage Rules, 1961, requiring the registration of all Hindu marriages performed in Assam. The state has also passed legislation requiring the compulsory registration of Muslim marriages, Sikh marriages,[51] and marriages performed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Assamese: বিশেষ বিবাহ আইন, ১৯৫৪,[52] pronounced [ˈbixɛx ˈbibaɦ aɪn]; Bodo: जर'खा जुलि बिथोनमा, 1954,[53] jarôkha juli bithŵnama).[54] In May 2023, the state government expressed its opposition to same-sex marriage while the Indian Supreme Court was debating its legalisation in Supriyo.[55]

In 1999, a Boro lesbian couple, Thingring Basumatary and Roinathi, were married in a Hindu temple in Kokrajhar in the Bodoland Territorial Region. The marriage lacks legal recognition, and the couple were shunned by their families and fellow villagers, and later relocated to another village to avoid harassment and ostracization. In 2009, Roinathi was quoted as saying, "We are both very happy and now even the society where we live accepts us and treats us well."[56][57] In May 2023, as the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in Supriyo, two young women from Guwahati, Manisha Rabha and Eliza Wahid, publicly announced their engagement. The announcement went viral on social media.[58]

Bihar[edit]

In August 2006, Governor R. S. Gavai ordered the publication of the Bihar Marriage Registration Rules, 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Bihar irrespective of the religion of the parties. They do not explicitly define marriage but generally refer to married spouses as "husband and wife".[59] The ruling party of Bihar, the centre-left Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party, does not have an official stance on same-sex marriages. In May 2023, RJD Vice-President Shivanand Tiwari expressed his support for same-sex marriage.[60]

Many same-sex couples in Bihar resort to "marriages by elopement" (पलायन विवाह; Hindi: [pəˈlaːjənə ʋɪˈʋaːɦ]; Maithili: [pəˈlaːjən ʋɪˈʋaːɦ]) to avoid family harassment and opposition. In 2017, two women received media coverage after marrying in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Bidupur. The parents of both spouses filed separate court cases to urge the police to separate the couple. A court ordered one of the partners to be jailed for "luring a minor into marriage" as the other woman was a minor at the time. The couple is believed to have eloped to Delhi.[61] A similar case had previously occurred in 2013 when a lesbian couple married in Patna and eloped to avoid family harassment.[62] In 2022, two men, Angrej Kumar and Rupesh Sad, married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in the Khagaria district to strong opposition from family members who forced the couple to separate.[63]

Chandigarh[edit]

In July 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has jurisdiction over the union territory of Chandigarh, ruled in Manjinder Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others that same-sex couples are entitled to live-in relationships and protection of their lives and liberty.[64] The court did not comment on the legality of the relationship of the petitioners, a lesbian couple living in Ludhiana, Punjab, but ruled that the couple was entitled to protection of their lives and liberty as provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Pooja and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, the High Court ruled in August 2023 that "Article 21 of the Constitution on protection of life and personal liberty [does] not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together.", ordering police to protect a lesbian couple from "potential threats to their lives".[65]

Chhattisgarh[edit]

The Government of Chhattisgarh published the Chhattigsarh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006 in November 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Chhattisgarh irrespective of the religion of the parties. They define marriage as "all marriages solemnized, performed or contracted between a male and a female, irrespective of the religion or caste of either party to the marriage, and also includes marriages performed as per law, custom practice or any tradition of either party to the marriage and includes a re-marriage."[66]

In March 2019, fifteen transgender women were married to their cisgender partners in a mass traditional Hindu ceremony in Raipur, although the marriages lack legal recognition. Mayor Madhu Kinnar of Raigarh attended the event and congratulated the couples, "This should have happened a long time ago because we transgender [people] don't have anybody to share out joys and sorrows. Nobody understands our sorrows. Today the government has given us such a good scheme and has given us an opportunity to get married. I thank them profusely."[67]

Delhi[edit]

In July 2019, the Delhi High Court dismissed a legal challenge brought forward by advocates Tajinder Singh and Anurag Chauhan seeking directions to make rules and regulations to recognise same-sex marriages under the HMA.[68]

Petitioners Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar Madurai, Giti Thadani and G. Oorvasi filed Abhijit Iyer Mitra & Ors v. Union of India in the Delhi High Court in 2020 asserting a right to marriage for same-sex couples under the HMA in Delhi. "[S]aid Act does not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual marriage if one were to go by how it has been worded. It very clearly states that marriage can indeed be solemnised between 'any two Hindus'. In this view of the matter, it can be stated that it is against the constitutional mandate of non-arbitrariness if the said right is not extended to homosexual apart from heterosexual couples," the petition, represented by lawyers Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma, said. The petition sought a declaration stating that Section 5 of the HMA did not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual couples and the right of same-sex couples to marry should be recognised under the Act. In November 2020, the Delhi High Court asked the Union Government to file an official response to the petition.[69]

In October 2020, a lesbian couple, medical practitioners Kavita Arora and Ankita Khanna, filed a lawsuit, Dr Kavita Arora & Anr v. Union of India,[70] with the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that the SMA ought to apply to couples irrespective of gender and sexual orientation. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy and lawyers Arundhati Katju, Govind Manoharan and Surabhi Dhar, contended that the SMA in denying recognition of same-sex marriages constituted an infringement of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The couple asserted that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India protect the right to marry a person of one's choice, and this right should apply to same-sex couples, just as it does to opposite-sex couples. The petitioners also contended that the exclusion of same-sex marriage from the SMA violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the fundamental right of equality.[71][72] Because they are unable to marry, the couple cannot own a house together, open a bank account or access family life insurance.[73] The High Court sought responses from the Union Government on the plea.[69] In Vaibhav Jain & Anr v. Union of India, two gay men, Vaibhav Jain and Parag Vijay Mehta, who had married in Washington, D.C. in 2017, contended that the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 should be perused to apply to same-sex relationships. The High Court asked the Union Government and the Consulate General of India in New York City to respond to the petition.[69]

The Delhi High Court set a hearing for all three petitions on 8 January 2021. On that day, Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula granted "one last opportunity" to the Union Government to file official responses to the three petitions.[74] The court scheduled further deliberations for 25 February 2021. The Union Government was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. On 25 February, the government asked the Delhi High Court to dismiss the cases, arguing in its response that marriage is based on "age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values" and that there thus exists a "legitimate state interest" in preventing same-sex couples from marrying.[75][76] A fourth petition, Udit Sood and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr, was filed in February 2021. The petitioners, three men and one woman, represented by advocates Meghna Mishra and Tahira Karanjawala, asked the court to declare that the SMA applies to any two persons who wish to marry regardless of sex. Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal asked the government to respond to the petition.[77] On 24 May 2021, the government asked the court to delay deliberations on the four petitions, stating that "nobody is dying because of the lack of marriage registration" and that the government's focus were on "urgent and immediate" pandemic-related issues.[78][79] A fifth petition, Joydeep Sengupta v. Union of India & Ors, was filed by Joydeep Sengupta, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), and his American partner Russell Blaine Stephens in July 2021. The couple argued that the Citizenship Act, 1955 does not distinguish between different-sex and same-sex spouses and that the same-sex spouse of an OCI should be eligible to apply for an OCI card. The plea further claimed that the Foreign Marriage Act violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in excluding the recognition of foreign same-sex marriages.[80] On 6 July 2021, the division bench of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh listed the petitions for hearing on 27 August.[81]

On 25 October 2021, the High Court granted time for the petitioners to file replies and rejoinders to the government's arguments. It set a final hearing for 30 November.[73] Instead, that day, advocates representing the couples asked that the proceedings be live streamed, arguing that "the issue at hand before this [Honourable Court] is of such magnitude and ramification, that live streaming of the said proceedings shall not only have a larger outreach but also help in spreading awareness". On 31 March 2022, Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla ordered the government to respond within two weeks to the application seeking live streaming of the proceedings.[82][83] In an affidavit, the government opposed live-streaming the proceedings, stating that the "applicants were attempting to create a dramatic impression of the proceedings before the court and to win sympathy", adding that the matter was not of "national importance".[84] On 17 May, the court objected to the government's "highly objectionable comments"; the government said it would file a new response. Advocates representing the couples said the government's statements demean the rights of same-sex couples, "I am troubled that the government of India should use words like sympathy, hallucination, you are sensationalising. You may agree or disagree on live streaming but please don't trivialise and demean the people who have struggled for years till the constitution bench of the apex court recognised their rights", said senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul.[85] The next hearing was scheduled for 20 August 2022. That day, the court deferred the hearing to 6 December.[86] In January 2023, the Delhi High Court transferred all these cases to the Supreme Court of India.[87]

Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu[edit]

The Goa Civil Code, which applies to the union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, former entities of Portuguese India, defines marriage as a "perpetual contract made between two persons of different sex with the purpose of legitimately constituting a family". Marriages are solemnised before officials of the Civil Registration Services according to the conditions established by law. Article 1058, which lists forbidden marriages such as marriages to relatives or to individuals under the marriageable age, does not explicitly ban marriages between people of the same sex.[88]

Goa[edit]

Goa is unique among the states of India in being the only one to have a unified marriage law. Every citizen is bound to the same law regardless of their religion.[89] However, article 1056 of the Goa Civil Code, largely based on Portuguese civil law, defines marriage as a "perpetual contract made between two persons of different sex with the purpose of legitimately constituting a family". Marriages are solemnised before officials of the Civil Registration Services according to the conditions established by law. Article 1058, which lists forbidden marriages such as marriages to relatives or to individuals under the marriageable age, does not explicitly ban marriages between people of the same sex.[88]

Reported in the media as "India's first gay marriage", designer Wendell Rodricks and his French partner, Jerome Marrel, entered into a civil solidarity pact (PACS), a French civil union scheme, in 2002. Rodricks later reported that the evening of the signing of the PACS 8 "scruffy-looking men" came to the couple's house in Colvale. Although he anticipated trouble, the men instead said "Landlord, you are getting married and not buying us a round of drinks?" Scroll.in reported this history in 2022 as an "early sign" on how Goans would "overcome prejudice to open [their] arms to the queer community".[90]

In 2006, a local LGBT advocacy group stated that in the past two years they had conducted 25 same-sex marriages, though the marriages lack legal recognition. "Fearing social stigma and discrimination, we had to conduct all these marriages in a clandestine manner.", said a spokesman for the group.[91] There have also been cases of marriages between cisgender men and hijra, known in the local Konkani language as khōjjō (खोज्जो, pronounced [ˈkʰoːd͡ʒːoː]).[92] In 2022, a lesbian couple, Dr. Paromita Mukherjee and Dr. Surabhi Mitra, orginially from Nagpur, Maharashtra, had a "big, fat, sea-side destination wedding" in Goa. The couple went public with the news of their wedding.[93] Mukherjee said, "We are over the moon with the love we are garnering. Somewhere we knew that the society and its aware people will celebrate our love with us."[94]

Gujarat[edit]

In March 2006, Governor Nawal Kishore Sharma signed the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Gujarat irrespective of the religion, caste or creed of the parties. It does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage. However, the Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride" and "bridegroom".[95] Civil unions (નાગરિક સંઘ, Gujarati: [ˈnɑɡɾɪk səŋɡʱ]; سول يونين, Sindhi: [sol ˈjonen]) are also not recognised in Gujarat. A famous Gujarati resident to have entered into a same-sex marriage is Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil, probable heir of the honorary Maharaja of Rajpipla, who married his American partner Cecil "DeAndre" Richardson ( Hilton) in Seattle in July 2013.[96]

In June 2020, a lesbian couple from the Mahisagar district filed a petition with the Gujarat High Court seeking police protection from their families and recognition of their right to cohabitation. The couple had entered into a "friendship agreement" (મૈત્રી કરાર, maitri karar, Gujarati: [ˈməjtɾi ˈkəɾɑɾ]) as a way to legitimise their relationship; "like in case of a marital union, it had details on property ownership, inheritance and maintenance, in case of separation." A maitri karar is a written document, often registered and notarized, which contains the terms and conditions on which a couple agrees to enter into cohabitation.[97] The High Court granted their petition on 23 July 2020 and ordered the Mahisagar police to give protection to the couple.[98] Maya Sharma, an activist with the Vikalp Women's Group, said "such contracts in court cases [are used] in which one of the partners' parents were forcing marriage upon them. It has helped us get judgements in our favour." The first maitri karar between a same-sex couple occurred in 1987 in the Chhota Udaipur district.[99]

In the village of Angaar in the Kutch district, the local Kutchi culture celebrates ritualistic transgender marriages every year during the festival of Holi, a custom that has been followed for over 150 years.[100]

Haryana[edit]

In April 2008, Governor Akhlaqur Rahman Kidwai signed the Haryana Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2008 into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Haryana irrespective of the religion, caste or creed of the parties. It does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage. However, the Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride" and "bridegroom".[101]

A single case of legal recognition of a same-sex marriage was granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 22 July 2011. The couple held a marriage ceremony in Gurgaon after signing an affidavit asserting that they met all of the requirements of a legal marriage. It is understood that the families of both spouses disapproved of the union, and the couple sought police protection following death threats from family members and local villagers.[102] Previously, three same-sex couples had married at the Mata Mansa Devi Mandir in the Panchkula district in July 2009, though the marriages lack legal recognition.[103] A lesbian couple had also married in a temple in Faridabad in 1993.[104]

In October 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a case, Monu Rajput v. State of Haryana, filed by a transgender man whose partner was being wrongfully detained by family members in Hansi. The court ruled that the partner could stay with her family, but gave the petitioner the right to visit from time to time.[105] A little under two months after the dismissal of this writ petition, the couple ran away together and got a protection order from the Delhi High Court.[106] In July 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in Manjinder Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others that same-sex couples are entitled to live-in relationships and protection of their lives and liberty.[64] The court did not comment on the legality of the relationship of the petitioners, a lesbian couple living in Ludhiana, Punjab, but ruled that the couple was entitled to protection of their lives and liberty as provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Pooja and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, the High Court ruled in August 2023 that "Article 21 of the Constitution on protection of life and personal liberty [does] not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together.", ordering police to protect a lesbian couple from "potential threats to their lives".[65]

Himachal Pradesh[edit]

In 1997, the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1997, requiring the registration of all marriages performed in Himachal Pradesh. The Act does not explicitly forbid same-sex marriages and defines marriage simply as including remarriage.[107]

On 22 June 2016, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recognised a guru-chela (or guru-shishya (गुरु चेला, Sanskrit: [ˈɡuɾu ˈɕiʂjɐ]; Hindi: [ɡʊˈɾuː ˈʃɪʂjə])) relationship between two hijra (referred to as "eunuchs" in court documents) for the purpose of allowing the guru to claim the property of their late chela.[108] Within the guru-chela system, the guru is considered the legal heir to the chela's property. In Sweety (Eunuch) v General Public, the High Court recognised this relationship and ruled that succession should be governed according to the guru-chela custom rather than under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.[109] In April 2022, two young men, who had married in a traditional ceremony in Delhi, asked for police protection from family members in Una.[110]

Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

Marriage registration laws provide for the registration of all Muslim, Hindu and Sikh marriages performed in Jammu and Kashmir,[111][112] as well as those performed under the SMA. These laws do not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, but the marriage certificate forms generally require the names of the "bride" and "bridegroom".

In 2007, a Sikh lesbian couple, Baljit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur, eloped from Batala, Punjab, and married on 3 June at the Vaishno Devi Temple in Katra where an army officer agreed to marry them. They caused public controversy when they announced their marriage to the media later in the month. Rajwinder's family later tracked the couple and lodged a complaint against Baljit, claiming that she had "enticed their daughter". In court, Rajwinder testified against Baljit claiming that she had been "coerced into their lesbian relationship". Baljit argued that Rajwinder's family had forced her to testify against their relationship.[41][113] In the Kashmir Valley, transgender women, also known as hijra,[c] have long been accepted as matchmakers and as performers at wedding ceremonies.[114]

Jharkhand[edit]

All marriages performed in Jharkhand must be registered with the Jharkhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2017. The Act does not explicitly forbid same-sex marriages.[115] The largest party in the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, has declined to take an official position on the legalisation of same-sex marriage.[116]

Although the marriage lacks legal recognition, two women were married in a Hindu temple in Kodarma in December 2020. It is understood that the family of both spouses were opposed to the union.[3] Several same-sex marriage ceremonies have also taken place among the Ho people. "Tribal society has no hassles accepting gay marriages. It has been happening amongst them since decades.", according to a 2009 report from the Hindustan Times. There is also a hijra community among the Ho people, known as kā pē'jani' (𑣌𑣁 𑣘𑣈𑣄𑣎𑣁𑣐𑣂𑣄, pronounced [kaː ˈpeːʔjaniʔ]), as well as among the Santal people, known as cākrā (ᱪᱟᱠᱨᱟ, pronounced [ˈcakra]),[117] and the Kurukh people, known as cakṛā (चकृा, pronounced [tʃaˈkɽaː]).[118]

Karnataka[edit]

The Government of Karnataka published the Karnataka Marriage (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 2006 in the Karnataka Gazette on 18 April 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Karnataka irrespective of the religion of the parties. The marriage certificate form requires the names of the "bride" and the "bridegroom".[119] The Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage.[120]

Some same-sex couples have married in traditional marriage ceremonies, though the marriages have no legal status in Karnataka. Nived Antony Chullickal and Abdul Rahim, originally from Kerala, were married in Bangalore in December 2019.[121] "I really just wanted to get married to my boyfriend and shared pre-wedding photoshoot, firstly, as a message to everyone that it is better to be late than never and second, it is so good to come out and marry your partner. Our wedding was like any other wedding. I also wanted it to be an inspiration for people, so that they too can do the same, and now so many people have called me and I really feel good that I have been an inspiration for all.", Chullickal told The News Minute.[122]

In 2020, members of the Kodava community called for the "ostracisation" of Dr. Sharath Ponnappa, a Kodava, because he chose to wear traditional Kodava attire, the kupya-chele,[d] at his marriage to Sundeep Dosanj, a Punjabi American, in the United States on 26 September 2020. K. S. Devaiah, the president of the Kodava Samaja in Madikeri, a community group representing Kodava interests, noted that while there had been several instances of inter-caste marriages, this was the first same-sex marriage in the community. "This wedding, where the couple wore traditional Kodava attire, is an insult to the entire community. Hence, after a meeting the members of the Kodava Samaja, we have recommended ostracisation of Sharath Ponnappa from the community. [...] Gay marriage is one thing and wearing sacred Kodava attire to solemnise a gay marriage is another thing. We are against the latter.", said Devaiah.[123] Ponnappa, a California doctor, responded to the controversy, saying, "We knew there would be dissenters, but we have literally been fighting for acceptance since the day we were born, fighting to survive and be treated the same as our peers. However, we proudly choose to live our truth, celebrate our same-sex marriage and encourage the dissenters to open their minds and engage in positive dialogue to understand that all humans are created equally and deserve respect and love."[124] Kodava actor Gulshan Devaiah weighed in, stating, "I look at the picture and they look beautiful and all that matters to me is the coming together of two people who love each other. I see the fact that they decided to wear the Kodava attire as a mark of respect and celebration of the Kodava traditions."[125]

The Halakki Vokkaliga, an indigenous people living in the Uttara Kannada district, have been celebrating traditional lesbian marriages for "so long that none living in the community now knows when and how it began". One such wedding, known in Kannada as daḍḍuve maduve (ದಡ್ಡುವೆ ಮದುವೆ, pronounced [ˈdɐɖːʊʋe ˈmɐdʊʋe]), is performed every year to honour Indra and pray that "the rain shouldn't be more or less than required". After the procession and rituals, the newly-weds, both of whom are dressed in saris, are blessed and given gifts just as at any other wedding. A recent daḍḍuve maduve in 2022 took place in a Hindu temple honouring Ganesha, who holds importance for the Halakki Vokkaliga.[126][127]

Kerala[edit]

In 2008, the Government of Kerala, by order of Governor R. L. Bhatia, published the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 in the Kerala Gazette on 29 February 2008. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages in Kerala "solemnized […] after the commencement of these Rules […] irrespective of [the] religion of the parties". The marriage certificate form requires the name, nationality, age, date of birth, address, and the previous marital status of the "husband" and the "wife".[128][129] Civil partnerships (Malayalam: ഗാര്ഹിക പങ്കാളിത്തം, pronounced [ˈgaːɾhigə paŋˈgaːɭit̪ːam]) are also not recognised in Kerala. In a survey published by the Azim Premji Foundation and Lokniti-CSDS in 2019, 58% of participants from the state opposed same-sex relationships; the fourth highest among the twelve states surveyed.[130] The 2021 Mathrubhumi Youth Manifesto Survey conducted on people aged between 15 and 35 showed that 74.3% of respondents supported legalising same-sex marriage, while 25.7% were opposed.[131]

In January 2020, Sonu Soman, an IP professional, and Nikesh Pushkaran, a businessman, filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, arguing that preventing them from marrying under the SMA violated the principle of equality, non-arbitrariness, non-discrimination, individual dignity and personal autonomy of Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.[132][133] The couple, from the Ernakulam district, had sought to marry at the Guruvayur Temple, but authorities refused to solemnize the marriage and issue a certificate; they married in a secret ceremony in a car parking area of the temple in July 2018.[134] They cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized homosexuality in India in 2018 and recognized a person's right to be treated with dignity regardless of sexual orientation, whilst arguing that exclusion from the institution of marriage denies them basic rights and privileges such as maintenance, inheritance, pension, joint bank accounts, etc: "The institution of marriage affords certain rights and privileges to the persons in matrimony in the society and due to the aforesaid exclusion, the homosexual couples like the petitioners are denied an opportunity to enjoy similar rights and privileges. Being married carries along with it the right to maintenance, right of inheritance, a right to own joint bank accounts, lockers; nominate each other as a nominee in insurance, pension, gratuity papers etc. All these are unavailable to the Petitioners due to their exclusion from the institution of marriage, making the said exclusion more discriminatory."[135] The couple filed the writ on 24 January with Justice Anu Sivaraman.[136] As of October 2022, the Kerala Government had not yet filed a response to the writ petition. Soman and Pushkaran wrote to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, but likewise did not receive a response.[137] In November 2022, the Deputy Solicitor General announced that the government was planning on transferring the writ petition to the Supreme Court of India.[138]

In 2018, the Kerala High Court ruled in Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police that a lesbian couple, Sreeja and Aruna, did not violate the law by living together in a same-sex relationship. The couple had moved in together, but Aruna's parents filed a missing person complaint with the police, and later attempted to send her to a mental hospital in Thiruvananthapuram. During the court proceedings, Aruna clarified that she was living with Sreeja of her own free will. The court held that their live-in relationship did not violate the law, and ordered that the couple be allowed to freely reside together.[139][140] In May 2022, the Kerala High Court gave a Muslim lesbian couple, Fathima Noora and Adhila Nasarin, the right to live together. The couple had been forcibly separated by their families, with Noora allegedly being forced into conversion therapy. Nasarin filed a habeas corpus plea, Adhila Nasarin v. Commissioner of Police, stating, "Noora's mother came and showed me a petition saying that I kidnapped her and she will take her back. They are very cruel, they may try to kill her and there were several threats from Noora's family. They even threatened to kill me and my father. Noora was taken away from me by force." In a short proceeding before Justices K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran, the court issued a judgement in favour of the couple on 31 May.[141][142] The couple were married in a traditional ceremony in October 2022.[143][144] In 2022, a woman from Kaloor filed a habeas corpus plea, Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, alleging that her same-sex partner had been illegally detained by her parents. The couple had been together for a year and planned on getting married. On 2 February 2023, the High Court denied the plea and directed the detained partner to attend psychiatric counselling. On 6 February, the plaintiff filed for review with the Indian Supreme Court. In her petition, she stated that the counselling recommended by the High Court "is obviously counselling to change her sexual orientation.", and urged her partner's release.[145][146]

In February 2023, the state government said it would introduce legislation to the Kerala Legislative Assembly amending the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 to allow transgender people to marry.[147] The first marriage ceremony for a transgender couple took place in Thiruvananthapuram in May 2018.[148] As both partners were transgender, authorities allowed it to be solemnised under the SMA as an opposite-sex marriage.

Ladakh[edit]

The Registration of Marriages (Ladakh) Regulations, 2022, which provide for the compulsory registrations of all marriages performed in Ladakh, define marriage as "all marriages solemnised or contracted between a male and a female, irrespective of the religion or caste of either party to the marriage, and also includes marriages performed as per law, custom, practice or any tradition of either party to the marriage and includes a remarriage."[149]

The culture of Ladakh has been significantly influenced by Tibetan customs. The Ladakhis historically practiced fraternal polyandry until the early 1940s. However, the practice remained in existence until the 1990s especially in isolated, rural areas.[150] While there are no records of same-sex marriages as understood from a Western perspective being performed in Ladakhi culture, there is evidence for identities and behaviours that may be placed on the LGBT spectrum. Drombo (དྲོམ་བོ) are passive homosexual partners, often in a close relationship with a monk. This relationship was socially accepted and understood to include sexual relations–but not penetration–and the drombo would "often receive substantial benefit to his career and status through this association".[151]

Lakshadweep[edit]

The union territory of Lakshadweep falls within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. The cases of Sreeja S, Adhila Nasarin, and Devu G. Nair concerning cohabitation and live-in relationships between same-sex partners have precedent in Lakshadweep.[152]

Madhya Pradesh[edit]

The Government of Madhya Pradesh published the Madhya Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2008 in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette in November 2008. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Madhya Pradesh irrespective of the religion of the parties. They define marriage as "all marriages solemnized, performed or contracted between a male and female, irrespective of the religion or caste of either party to the marriage and includes marriages performed as per law, custom, practice or any tradition of either party to the marriage and also includes a re-marriage as including remarriage."[153]

In 1987, two policewomen, Lila Namdeo and Urmila Srivastava, were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Sagar by a Brahmin priest. Narendra Virmani, the Inspector General of Police, discharged them after learning about the marriage. The couple was kept in isolation and not provided food for 48 hours. They were subjected to a "medical examination", and later left at the railway station in the middle of the night and warned against returning to the barracks.[4] The event received wide coverage in the press at the time.[154] In 2023, the state government urged the Supreme Court "not to rush" into legalising same-sex marriage in Supriyo, arguing that the Parliament should decide the issue, "Whole social fabric will break apart if things are thrust upon the society by the court… we have to take things slowly in this area and not with speed."[155] A custom called nata pratha (नाता प्रथा, Hindi: [ˈnaːtaː pɾəˈtʰaː]) is practiced among lower-caste communities in parts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, allowing a couple to live together and perform "all [the] obligations of [a married couple] without a formal wedding ceremony". A nata pratha is formalized through a written agreement and the payment of a bride price, and they are known cases of same-sex couples entering into the arrangement.[97]

Maharashtra[edit]

A same-sex couple at Queer Azaadi Mumbai in 2019

In April 1999, Governor P. C. Alexander signed the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998 into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Maharashtra irrespective of the religion, caste or creed of the parties. It does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage. However, the Act generally refers to married spouses as "husband and wife"; the Act defines the "parties" to a marriage as "the husband and wife whose marriage has been solemnized".[156] Civil partnerships (Marathi: नागरी भागीदारी, pronounced [ˈnaːɡəɾiː ˈbʱaːɡiːdaːɾiː]) are also not recognised in Maharashtra.

In December 2017, a same-sex couple, 43-year-old IIT Bombay engineer Hrishi Sathawane and his 35-year-old partner of Vietnamese origin known only as Vinh, were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Yavatmal. The ceremony, which was attended by close friends and family members, involved an exchange of rings and garlands in accordance with Hindu custom.[157] In February 2019, two men, Vinodh Philip and Vincent Illaire, held a traditional marriage ceremony in Mumbai with the exchange of garlands and also the wearing of a mangala sutra and toe rings as symbols of marriage.[158]

In December 2023, Archbishop of Bombay Oswald Gracias responded to Fiducia supplicans, a declaration allowing Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples,[159] by calling it "an affirmation of our spirituality and a gift". Gracias said, "Our Indian mentality is so inclusive, understanding people of other religions and other faiths. All are searching for God, all are searching for the truth, all are searching for spirituality."[160]

Manipur[edit]

The Manipur Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2008 officially took effect in October 2013. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Manipur irrespective of the religion or caste of the parties. It defines marriage as "all the marriages contracted or solemnized by persons belonging to any caste, religion or creed and the marriages solemnized or contracted as per any custom, practices or traditions and also includes 're-marriages'". The Act does not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, but states that the parties to the marriage "mean the husband and wife whose marriage has been solemnized".[161]

A same-sex marriage ceremony occurred in Imphal in March 2010. The marriage lacks legal recognition and it is understood that the parents of the couple were opposed to the union.[162] In pre-colonial Meitei society, there existed a third gender community known as nupi maanbi (Manipuri: নূপি মানবি, ꯅꯨꯄꯤ ꯃꯥꯅꯕꯤ, pronounced [nùbì mánbì]), who "[held] a high status, power and privilege in the social and cultural life of Meitei society", acting as religious counsellors and guards for the Meitei kings at the Kangla fort.[163]

Meghalaya[edit]

In September 2012, Governor Ranjit Shekhar Mooshahary signed the Meghalaya Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2012, also commonly known as the Marriage Act (Khasi: Ki Aiñ Shongkha Shongman; Garo: Bia Ka•ani Niam), into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Meghalaya irrespective of the religion of the parties. It does not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages, and defines marriage as "all marriages contracted by persons belonging to any caste, tribe or religion, and the marriages contracted as per any customs, practices or traditions, and also includes re-marriages and live in relationship." However, the Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride" and "bridegroom".[164]

In 2018, a spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Shillong expressed the diocese's opposition to same-sex marriage in Meghalaya.[165] In December 2023, the archdiocese announced that clergy could bless same-sex couples in accordance with Fiducia supplicans.[166]

Mizoram[edit]

The Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014 (Mizo: Inneih, Inthen leh Rokhawm Dan, 2014) enacted by the Mizoram Legislative Assembly, regulates marriage, divorce and inheritance rules for the Mizo people, allowing marriages performed under Mizo customs to be legally recognised in Mizoram. The Act defines marriage as "a union of a man and a woman who are both major as husband and wife".[167] In a survey published by the Azim Premji Foundation and Lokniti-CSDS in 2019, 87% of participants from the state opposed same-sex relationships; the highest among the twelve states surveyed.[130]

In pre-colonial Mizo society, there seems to have been a third gender community, known as tuai (Mizo: [túɑi]), who performed roles opposite to their biological genders. The tuai dressed as women, wearing the puan, and performed work which was traditionally regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere. It is quite rare, however, to find mentions of tuai in Mizo oral literature and written history. According to some Mizo academics, Tuaisala, the younger brother of Liandova, a Mizo hero, was a tuai and performed a tuai khaw fang, a practice among tuai to travel around villages in the Lushai Hills. It is said, however, that tuai were buried facing the ground, which was considered a sign of disrespect. In the early 20th century, British colonial officers ordered every tuai to begin dressing up as men and perform forced labour like Mizo men.[168]

Nagaland[edit]

Same-sex marriage remains a controversial topic in Nagaland. In a survey published by the Azim Premji Foundation and Lokniti-CSDS in 2019, 63% of participants from the state opposed same-sex relationships; the second highest among the twelve states surveyed.[130] Some LGBT people are reportedly forced into heterosexual marriages.[169] In May 2023, as the Indian Supreme Court was considering a case to legalise same-sex marriage, the leader of the Naga People's Front, Küzholuzo Nienü, said, "I, on my behalf and on behalf of the Naga People's Front, am of the view that the honourable Supreme Court should not allow legalized-sex marriages. The Government of India has rightly opposed same-sex marriages. Naga customary law nor any of the known faiths including Christianity, allow for marriages among same sexes, whether men or women [sic]."[170]

Odisha[edit]

Supporters of same-sex marriage at a pride parade in Bhubaneswar in 2019

In November 2006, two Khond women, Bateka Palang and Maleka Nilsa, were married "in a traditional ceremony, in the presence of family" in a rural town in the Koraput district, Odisha.[41] Following the traditional custom of bride price, the gāṭi muḍa,[e] the family of Bateka gave a cow and wine to the family of Maleka. Bateka's mother was quoted as saying, "We resisted their marriage because it was against our tradition. But they were in no mood to listen and eloped. Finally, we were compelled to get them married according to our tradition. I have accepted Maleka as my daughter-in-law."[171] Two women were married in a temple in Talcher in July 2018 "causing outrage among the villagers and ostracisation of their own families".[172] A lesbian couple, Sabitri Parida and Monalisa Nayak, were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Kendrapara in January 2019. The parents of the brides were not supportive of their relationship, and Noyak's father issued a statement alleging that "his daughter is innocent and is under a spell of black magic", urging police to separate the couple.[173] The couple left to Bhubaneswar to avoid family harassment.[174]

In August 2020, the Orissa High Court ruled in Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha that same-sex live-in relationships are recognised under the constitutional right to life and equality. The court heard a habeas corpus plea filed by Sonu Krishna Jena, a transgender man, whose partner had been kidnapped by her family and forced into a marriage with another man. It ordered the partner's release, recognising the right to cohabit with a partner of a person's choice regardless of gender. The court also held that women in live-in relationships are protected under a 2005 domestic violence law similarly to different-sex cohabiting couples.[12] It is unknown what legal rights and benefits live-in relationship provide to same-sex couples. Unlike registered partnerships (Odia: ନାଗରିକ ସହଭାଗୀତା, pronounced [naɡɔˈɾikɔ sɔhɔbʱaˈɡiːt̪a]), live-in relatationships lack a robust, legally protected status.

Puducherry[edit]

Puducherry falls within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, based in Tamil Nadu. On 22 April 2019, the High Court ruled in Arunkumar v. The Inspector General of Registration that transgender women may marry under the HMA, a ruling that has precedent in Puducherry as well.[175] Puducherry does not recognise civil partnerships.[f]

Punjab[edit]

On 4 January 2013, Governor Shivraj Patil assented the Punjab Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2012. The Act defines marriage as "includ[ing] a marriage, solemnized in the State of Punjab under any of the following Act, customs or laws, namely: the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (15 of 1872); the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (7 of 1909); the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (26 of 1937); the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955); or any other custom or personal law relating to marriages." It does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages.[176]

Reported in the media as Punjab's "first gay marriage", a lesbian couple were married as per traditional Hindu customs on 22 April 2017 in Jalandhar, alongside family and friends.[177][178] On 18 September 2023, a transgender man and a cisgender woman were married at a gurdwara in Bathinda "in all the traditional rituals and got married in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib". The marriage proved controversial, with the Jathedar of the Akal Takht condemning the wedding as "a severe moral and religious violation" which is "unnatural and contrary to Sikh ethics". Hardev Singh, the priest who performed the ceremony, was suspended.[179]

In July 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in Manjinder Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others that same-sex couples are entitled to live-in relationships (Punjabi: ਲਿਵ ਇਨ ਰਿਲੇਸ਼ਨਸ਼ਿਪ, pronounced [ˈlɪʋə ˈɪnə ɾɪˈleːʃənəʃɪpə]) and protection of their lives and liberty.[64] The court did not comment on the legality of the relationship of the petitioners, a lesbian couple living in Ludhiana, but ruled that the couple was entitled to protection of their lives and liberty as provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Pooja and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, the High Court ruled in August 2023 that "Article 21 of the Constitution on protection of life and personal liberty [does] not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together.", ordering police to protect a lesbian couple from "potential threats to their lives".[65] The court had ruled similarly in 2019 for a male couple who were "receiving threats to their lives and liberty at the hands of [their] family".[180]

Rajasthan[edit]

On 10 September 2009, Governor Shilendra Kumar Singh signed the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2009 into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Rajasthan irrespective of the religion of the parties. It does not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage.[181]

In December 2022, a same-sex couple, Kahran Singh and Gourav Tarafdar, were married in a traditional Hindu wedding ceremony in Jaisalmer alongside family and friends. The union is not legally recognised in Rajasthan, and it is understood that some family members of the couple were opposed to the marriage.[182] Previously, a lesbian couple, Ayesha Nageshwaran and Katja Hahnloser-Nageshwaran, had held a wedding ceremony in Jaisalmer in November 2019.[183] In May 2023, the state government, led by the Indian National Congress (INC), announced its opposition to same-sex marriage, writing in a statement that same-sex marriage would "create imbalance in the social fabric, leading to widespread consequences for the social and family systems."[184] Subsequently, film director Onir accused the INC of "betraying the LGBT community". Responding to the controversy, MP Shashi Tharoor said the party had yet to announce an official position on same-sex marriage.[185] A custom called nata pratha (नाता प्रथा, Hindi: [ˈnaːtaː pɾəˈtʰaː]) is practiced among lower-caste communities in Rajasthan, allowing a couple to live together and perform "all [the] obligations of [a married couple] without a formal wedding ceremony".[186] A nata pratha is formalized through a written agreement and the payment of a bride price, and they are known cases of same-sex couples entering into the arrangement.[97]

Sikkim[edit]

In August 2007, the Government of Sikkim published "Notification No. 10/R", also commonly known as the Marriage Rules,[g] ordering the compulsory registration of all marriages solemnised in Sikkim.[189] Previously, only the ICMA and the HMA were applicable to Sikkim. In 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind approved by public notification the extension of the SMA to Sikkim as well.[190] In May 2023, in response to the ongoing deliberations in the Supreme Court in the Supriyo case, the state government issued a statement that it needed "more time" to take a stand on the issue.[191]

Tamil Nadu[edit]

In 2009, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009, which was signed into law by Governor Surjit Singh Barnala in August 2009. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages in Tamil Nadu "performed on and from the date of commencement of this Act". It defines marriage as "all marriages performed by persons belonging to any caste or religion under any law for the time being in force, or as per any custom or usage in any form or manner and also includes remarriage".[192] According to a 2019 report titled "Politics and Society Between Elections 2019", published by the Azim Premji Foundation and Lokniti-CSDS, Tamil Nadu ranked third in the nation in terms of acceptance of same-sex unions, after Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.[130][193] On 17 November 2023, Justice N Anand Venkatesh recommended the state government to introduce a "deed of familial association", a scheme "[protect]ing [same-sex couples] from harassment and discrimination in society" and offering some limited legal benefits.[194]

On 22 April 2019, the Madras High Court ruled in Arunkumar v. The Inspector General of Registration that transgender women may marry under the HMA.[175] The court ordered the state government to register the marriage of a man and a transgender woman, Shri Arunkumar and Ms. Srija, which had been performed in October 2018 in Thoothukudi in accordance with Hindu custom. The couple were issued a marriage certificate following the court ruling in May 2019.[195][196][197][198] Following their marriage ceremony in October, the Registrar of Marriages had refused to certify the marriage and issue a license, arguing that the couple could not marry under the HMA and that the dictionary definition of bride excluded transgender women. The court ruled that the refusal to register the marriage discriminated on the basis of gender identity in violation of the Supreme Court's ruling in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.[199] The court also discussed the story of Aravan in its ruling.[200]

A Tamil woman, Subiksha Subramani, married her Bangladeshi partner Tina Das in a traditional Tamil wedding ceremony in Chennai in September 2022. The marriage has no legal status in India, but Subramani said, "It was everything we dreamt of but never thought was possible. After years of soldering thorough and braving the taunts we are happy today that our loved ones are standing with us, cheering for us and performing every ritual according to our respective customs."[201] The officiant who performed the ceremony said he had already performed several ceremonies for same-sex couples. A same-sex couple were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony near Salem in July 2022.[202]

Every year, many Tamil transgender people meet in Koovagam to marry Lord Aravan, known locally as Koothandavar. The participants marry Koothandavar, thus reenacting an ancient story in the Mahabharata: "Aravan, the son of Arjuna and Nāga princess Ulupi, agrees to be sacrificed to goddess Kali so that the Pandavas can win the war against the Kauravas. His dying wish is that he is married. However, no one is willing to marry him since he will be sacrificed the next morning. So Krishna takes on female form as Mohini, weds Aravan – only to be widowed the morning after." Transgender people in Tamil Nadu are referred to as aravāṇi (அரவாணி, pronounced [ˈaɾaʋaːɳi]) in reference to the story. Other characters in the Mahabharata epic changed their gender. For instance, Shikhandi, the sibling of Draupadi, changed gender to male in order to go to war; Arjuna spent the last year of a 13-year-exile as an eunuch named Brihannala; and Krishna as Mohini had a son named Ayyappan with Shiva.[203]

Telangana[edit]

The Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002, which received the assent of Governor C. Rangarajan on 21 May 2002, was in force in the combined state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. On 2 June 2014, the Act was adapted to Telangana as the Telangana Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002. It defines marriage as "all marriages performed by persons belonging to any caste or religion and also the marriages performed as per any custom, practices or any traditions including the marriages performed in the tribal areas and the word 'marriage' also includes 'remarriage'". The Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride and bridegroom".[204]

On 18 December 2021, two men, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, were married in a Hindu ceremony in Hyderabad, making "it the first gay wedding in the Telugu States".[42] Their wedding was attended by family members and close friends,[43] but the union is not legally recognised in Telangana.[44] The couple later filed a lawsuit, Supriyo v. Union of India, seeking legal recognition for their marriage under the SMA. The Indian Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case in April and May 2023. It issued a verdict on 17 October 2023, declining to recognise same-sex marriages under the SMA.

Tripura[edit]

In August 2004, Governor Dinesh Nandan Sahay signed the Tripura Recording of Marriage Act, 2003 into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Tripura irrespective of the religion or caste of the parties. It does not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage. However, the Act generally refers to married spouses as "husband and wife".[205]

Same-sex marriage remains a controversial topic in Tripura, with many LGBT people forced by families into heterosexual marriages and some couples also resorting to a so-called "marriage by elopement" (Bengali: পালিয়ে বিয়ে, pronounced [ˈpali̯e ˈbi̯e]; Kokborok: kharlai kaijakmani, pronounced [kʰàrlài̯ kài̯.jàkmànì]) to avoid family harassment and violence.[206] In May 2023, the local chapter of the Hindu-nationalist Vishwa Hindu Parishad organisation urged the Supreme Court to reject the case seeking to legalise same-sex marriage, claiming that "Hindu society and heterogenous marriage culture would be destroyed" if same-sex marriage were legalised.[207]

Uttar Pradesh[edit]

All marriages performed in Uttar Pradesh must be registered with the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in the state irrespective of the religion or caste of the parties.[208] According to a 2019 report titled "Politics and Society Between Elections 2019", published by the Azim Premji Foundation and Lokniti-CSDS, Uttar Pradesh ranked first in the nation in terms of acceptance of same-sex unions.[130]

Some same-sex couples have married in traditional marriage ceremonies, though the marriages have no legal status in Uttar Pradesh. In 2004, two young Muslim men were married in Ghaziabad but were physically assaulted by family members when it was reported that they intended to continue living together.[104] In 2018, a lesbian couple were married in Agra despite opposition from family members.[209] In 2019, two women got married in Hamirpur, but the local registrar's office refused to register the union citing lack of relevant legal provisions.[210] In June 2019, two women in Muzaffarnagar asked for police protection from their families in order to be allowed to marry.[211] There is also a large hijra (हिजड़ा, Hindi: [ˈɦɪdʒɽaː]; ہِجڑا, Urdu: [ˈɦɪdʒɽaː]) community in Uttar Pradesh, and there are known instances of transgender marriages occurring in the state.[212]

In Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court ruled in January 2021 that same-sex couples in live-in relationships should be entitled to equal protection under the law as Indian citizens, safeguards against discrimination and unequal treatment, and freedom to choose a partner of one's choice. The court reiterated precedent it had set in its 2020 ruling in Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh.[213] In April 2022, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a case brought by a Hindu lesbian couple in Prayagraj who wished to marry under the HMA. The court also dismissed a habeas corpus claim brought by the mother of one of the spouses who claimed that her daughter had been kidnapped by the partner.[214][215] The state government intervened politically in the case to signal its opposition to same-sex marriages, "As per the Indian law and culture, a biological husband and wife have are essential for marriage, and only their marriage has been recognised. In their absence, homosexual marriage cannot be recognised as it lacks male and female and neither can they produce children. Marriage is considered important in Hindu law, under which both men and women live together and carry forward the human chain by producing children."[216]

Uttarakhand[edit]

In 2010, the Government of Uttarakhand published the Uttarakhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2010. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Uttarakhand irrespective of the religion of the parties. They do not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages, and define marriage as "all the marriages contracted by person belonging to any caste, tribe or religion, and the marriages contracted as per any custom, practices or traditions, and also includes re-marriages". However, the marriage certificate form requires the names of the "bride" and the "bridegroom".[217]

On 12 June 2020, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled in Madhu Bala v. State of Uttarakhand that live-in relationships (Hindi: लिव-इन रिलेशनशिप, pronounced [ˈlɪʋɪn ɾɪˈleːʃənəʃɪp]) between same-sex couples are not unlawful; "It is a fundamental right which is guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is wide enough to protect an inherent right of self determination with regards to one's identity and freedom of choice with regards to the sexual orientation of choice of the partner". The court pointed out that the liberty of an adult person cannot be curtailed so long as they are capable to making a choice for themselves, and they are entitled to enjoy the freedoms that are permitted to them by law.[218] In this case, the petitioner, Madhu Bala, filed the habeas corpus writ petition accusing family members of wrongfully detaining her partner. In oral arguments on 27 May 2020, the partner told the court that she wished to live with Bala. However, that statement was made in the absence of her family members. The court noted that the case could not be decided in their absence since the allegation of wrongful confinement had been made against them. In a second hearing in front of the court on 8 June 2020, with family members in attendance, the partner retracted her previous statement and said she would like to reside in her parents' home. The court subsequently dismissed the writ petition. Surabhi Shukla, law professor at the University of Sheffield, said in a statement, "The court severely waters down this right [live-in relationships] in application in this case. They do not implement the declaration made by one of the women in the relationship that she wants to continue to live with her partner because she makes this statement in the absence of her family. This raises the question: is this because of the deep-seated paternalism and homophobia of the legal system, or is it because the legal procedure requires the presence of her family members in this case."[219] In December 2021, the High Court issued a decision in Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand, upholding the rights of adults to choose their life partners, even when confronted with objections from their families. The court instructed police in the Udham Singh Nagar district to ensure protection for both petitioners.[220]

In June 2023, media reported that a government committee was considering the introduction of a uniform civil code in Uttarakhand which included recommendations concerning same-sex live-in relationships and "the rights of the LGBTQ community".[221] However, a member of the committee was later quoted as saying that legal rights for same-sex couples would be "unlikely".[222]

West Bengal[edit]

In August 2006, the Government of West Bengal published the West Bengal Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2010. The Rules provide for the registration of all Hindu marriages solemnised in West Bengal. They do not explicitly define marriage but generally refer to married spouses as "husband and wife" and define the "parties" to a marriage as "husband and wife".[223] The government similarly published the West Bengal Special Marriage Rules, 2010, which requires the registration of all marriages performed under the SMA.

On 3 July 2022, a same-sex couple, Abhishek Ray and Chaitanya Sharma, got married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Kolkata alongside family and friends.[224] Abhishek said, "So, we were sceptical about it at first but then thought a wedding ceremony was not a criminal act. Section 377 allows gay couples to be together. In a social wedding, it is not just two people getting married, but it is about two families coming together. Gay marriages might not be legal, but doing this social event with loved ones is important to celebrate our love. Making this decision was not easy, but we made it happen. I guess this is the first gay wedding in Kolkata and I hope this is followed by several such marriages and it becomes as natural and normal as any other wedding."[225] A couple, Shaswata Lahiri and Diyasha Bhattacharya, had previously gotten married in a Hindu temple in North Kolkata in 2007, and another same-sex couple, Sree and Suchandra Das Mukherjee, had married in Kolkata in December 2015.[226]

Court cases[edit]

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India[edit]

In March 2018, the Indian Supreme Court, in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, held that an adult has the fundamental right to marry a person of their choice. In this case, which centred on the practice of honour killings, most often performed by family members when a person chooses to marry outside of their caste or religious group, the court ruled that "the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. True it is, the same is bound by the principle of constitutional limitation but in the absence of such limitation, none, we mean, no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice. If the right to express one's own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness." At the time, LGBT activists felt that a joint reading of Shakti Vahini and Navtej Singh Johar, could yield the recognition of same-sex unions within the Special Marriage Act, 1954.[227][228]

Supriyo v. Union of India[edit]

Oral arguments and reactions[edit]

On 25 November 2022, the Supreme Court of India agreed to hear a case, Supriyo v. Union of India, challenging the government's refusal to recognise same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act. The lead plaintiffs were Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, a couple from Hyderabad.[229][230][231] The filing of the lawsuit was opposed by some politicians. On 19 December 2022, Sushil Modi, a prominent lawmaker from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), told Parliament that "India is [a] country of 1.4 billion people and two judges cannot just sit in a room and decide on such a socially significant subject. Instead, there should be a debate in Parliament as well as the society at large."[232][233] On 6 January 2023, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, ordered that all lawsuits challenging the inability of same-sex couples to marry in the Delhi and Kerala high courts be transferred to the Supreme Court, and set oral arguments for 13 March 2023.[234] Citing the importance of this matter and invoking Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court referred the case on 13 March to a five-judge constitution bench, and set the first oral arguments for 18 April 2023.[235]

On 14 March 2023, during a press conference of the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, Dattatreya Hosabale, general secretary of the far-right and Hindu-nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh organisation expressed opposition to the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples, arguing that "marriage is an institution for the benefit of the family and society, not for physical and sexual enjoyment."[236] On 24 March 2023, a group of 21 retired judges of various high courts issued an open letter stating that the legalisation of same-sex marriage would "change the entire gamut of all personal laws from marriage to adoption and succession. The law-making power is vested with the Parliament and not with the judiciary, especially in matters exclusively within social and political domain." The letter also noted that "instead of having wide-range discussions amongst stakeholders, such a hasty judicial intervention is unfortunate, and totally unwarranted. The court should not interfere in sensitive issues like same-sex marriage. The subject is related to society and the opinion of society on these matters is important. Parliament is paramount in making laws and the MPs elected to Parliament represent the people of the country."[237] Critics pointed out that the retired judges built a fictitious argument that legalising same-sex marriage would increase HIV infections, "fears not supported by facts or statistics".[238][239][240] On 1 April 2023, Mahmood Madani, representing Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, sought to intervene in Supriyo as an opponent of same-sex marriage. Several other Islamic organisations including Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and the Telangana Markazi Shia Ulema Council also voiced their opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage.[241][242][243] The Bar Council of India issued a statement in April urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition, claiming without evidence that "99 percent of Indians oppose [same-sex marriage]";[244] a Pew Research Center poll conducted between February and May 2023 showed that 53% of Indians supported same-sex marriage.[245]

Oral arguments began on 18 April 2023.[246] During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, stated that "five individuals should not decide for the entire nation and issues related to human relationships, such as marriage should be addressed through legislation in Parliament." Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud responded, "There is no absolute concept of a man or a woman at all. You can't tell us what to do. I won't allow this in my court."[247][248][249] On 19 April, the government argued before the court that the concept of same-sex marriage was a "mere urban elitist view for the purpose of social acceptance".[250] Chief Justice Chandrachud responded, "But Nepal is definitely not an urbanized and elite country.", referencing attempts to legalise same-sex marriage in Nepal.[251] On 20 April 2023, the five-judge constitution bench led by Chandrachud hinted at their intention to legalize same-sex marriage, despite objections by the Indian Government and religious groups.[252][253]

On 21 April 2023, Bhupender Yadav, the Minister of Labour and Employment and Environment, Forest and Climate Change as well as the General Secretary of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, stated that "the issue of marriage concerns society and society's opinion on this issue cannot be excluded. The voice of society is best reflected in Parliament".[254][255] The state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Assam and Rajasthan also issued statements opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriages.[256] On 3 May, Solicitor General Mehta told the constitution bench that a parliamentary committee would be formed to study providing limited legal rights to same-sex partners. A lawyer representing the couples said the changes were "welcome" but "they are not a substitute for the reliefs the petitioners are seeking." The bench clarified that they would continue to hear the petition.[257] The constitution bench concluded oral arguments on 11 May 2023, after 10 total days of hearings from petitioners and respondents.[258]

Judgement[edit]

On 17 October 2023, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the legalization of same-sex marriage is a matter for the Parliament to decide, not the courts. In a 3–2 decision, it also ruled against ordering the government to introduce civil unions.[259] However, the court unanimously accepted the government's suggestion that it set up a high-powered committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary to investigate the discrimination faced by LGBT people and study providing limited legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples, including with regard to access to joint bank accounts, recognition as next-of-kin, medical decisions for a hospitalised partner, prison visitations, and succession rights.[260] However, the judgment did not set a timetable for establishing the committee nor any details on its composition. Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote that the court could not declare the SMA unconstitutional because this would bar inter-faith and inter-caste marriages, and argued that reading same-sex couples into the Act would violate the separation of powers:

This court cannot either strike down the constitutional validity of the Special Marriage Act or read words into the Special Marriage Act because of its institutional limitations. The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain. […] The judiciary cannot legislate."

Chandrachud refuted the government's arguments that homosexuality was "urban" or "elitist", and reiterated judicial precedent that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by the Indian Constitution. He also ruled that Parliament has the power to legalise same-sex marriage, "The institution of marriage is not static - all social institutions transform over time and marriage is no exception. Despite vehement opposition to departure from practice, the institution of marriage has changed, it has metamorphosed. It has transformed from the time of our ancestors 200 years ago." Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul agreed with Chandrachud that same-sex relationships had been recognised in India from antiquity, "not just in terms of sexual activities but as relationships that fostered love, emotional support and mutual care", but ruled that the "court cannot grant [LGBT] people the right to marry as that is a legislative exercise". The majority opinion of the court also states that transgender people may marry. "A transgender man can marry a transgender woman. If a transgender person wishes to marry a heterosexual person, their marriage will be recognised if one is a man and another a woman."[36][261]

One of the petitioners in Supriyo filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court on 1 November. The petitioner asked the court to review the decision in light of "its self-contradictory conclusion": "The Petitioners respectfully submit that this Court ought to review and correct its decision […] because the impugned judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and is self-contradictory and manifestly unjust."[262] The petitioner, Udit Soot, added, "The majority ruling is self-contradictory, facially erroneous and deeply unjust. The majority found that queer Indians endure severe discrimination at the hands of the State, declared that discrimination must be prohibited, and then did not take the logical next step of enjoining the discrimination." The Supreme Court heard the petition for review on 28 November.[263][264]

Political viewpoints[edit]

In April 2014, Medha Patkar of the Aam Aadmi Party said that her party supports same-sex marriage, becoming the first political party in India to do so.[265] The Trinamool Congress, the third largest party in India, also supports same-sex marriage. In 2023, General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee endorsed the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, and a party spokesperson confirmed that this reflects the party's stance.[266] Other parties in support include the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India. The latter released a statement on 15 March 2023 criticising the BJP's opposition to same-sex marriage, categorising it as "a reflection of the Manuvādi worldview, which excludes and criminalises".[267] On 22 April 2023, MP Binoy Viswam reiterated the party's commitment to "stand with the democratic rights" of LGBT people.[266]

The governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) opposes same-sex marriage. In 2023, the BJP-led Union Government expressed its opposition to same-sex marriage in India, calling it "urban and elitist" and arguing that its legalisation would "destroy the social fabric".[268][269][270] The Indian National Congress (INC), the second largest party in India, does not have an official position on the matter,[271] but some individual party members have expressed support, including Abhishek Singhvi, Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tewari, while others have stated their opposition. The INC-led Rajasthan Government interevened politically in Supriyo to oppose same-sex marriage in India.

Other parties, including the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Biju Janata Dal, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, the Nationalist Congress Party, and the Rashtriya Janata Dal, have not taken an official position on the legalisation of same-sex marriage.[60]

Religious performance and blessings[edit]

Several same-sex couples have married in Hindu temples throughout India since the late 1980s, though the marriages lack legal recognition. Reactions have ranged from support to disapproval to violent persecution. In 1987, a lesbian couple were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Madhya Pradesh by a Brahmin priest. The Inspector General of Police discharged them after learning about the marriage, and the couple was kept in isolation and not provided food for 48 hours. They were subjected to a "medical examination", and later left at the railway station in the middle of the night and warned against returning to the barracks.[4] In 2010, academic Ruth Vanita reported that many of these couples were "non-English-speaking young women from lower-income groups", and "[not] connected to any movement for equality; most of them were not aware of terms like "gay" or "lesbian". Many of them framed their desire to marry in terms drawn from traditional understandings of love and marriage, saying, for example, that they could not conceive of life without each other, and wanted to live and die together."[272] Some couples, however, have married in accordance with traditional Hindu wedding customs with support from their family and community.[41][3]

On 18 September 2023, a Sikh couple were married at a gurdwara in Punjab "in all the traditional rituals and got married in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib". The marriage proved controversial, with the Jathedar of the Akal Takht, the head of the Sikhs, condemning the wedding as "a severe moral and religious violation" which is "unnatural and contrary to Sikh ethics". Hardev Singh, the priest who performed the ceremony, was suspended.[179]

In December 2023, the Holy See published Fiducia supplicans, a declaration allowing Catholic priests to bless couples who are not considered to be married according to church teaching, including the blessing of same-sex couples.[159] Subsequently, the archdioceses of Bombay and Shillong announced that their clergy would be permitted to bless same-sex couples.[160][166]

Public opinion[edit]

Support for same-sex marriage among 18–21-year-olds according to a 2016 survey from the Varkey Foundation

According to a 2015 Ipsos poll, 29% of Indian people supported same-sex marriage, while 18% supported other forms of legal recognition.[273] Among the 23 countries polled, India had the fifth lowest support for same-sex marriage, in front of only South Korea (27%), Turkey (27%), Poland (21%) and Russia (11%). According to a 2016 poll by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, 35% of the respondents were in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, while 35% were opposed.[274] A September–October 2016 survey by the Varkey Foundation found that support for same-sex marriage was higher among 18 to 21-year-olds at 53%.[275]

A 2019 poll by Mood of the Nation (MOTN) found that 24% of respondents agreed with same-sex marriages, while 62% disagreed and 14% were undecided.[276][277]

A May 2021 Ipsos poll showed that 44% of Indians supported same-sex marriage, 14% supported civil unions but not marriage, while 18% were opposed to all legal recognition for same-sex couples, and 24% were undecided. However, the sample was "more urban, more educated, and/or more affluent than the general population", and so may not be representative of the entire population.[278] A Pew Research Center poll conducted between February and May 2023 showed that 53% of Indians supported same-sex marriage (28% "strongly" and 25% "somewhat"), while 43% were opposed (31% "strongly" and 12% "somewhat") and 4% did not know or refused to answer.[245] Support was 52% among Hindus.[279]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Hindi: विवाह नियम, pronounced [ʋɪˈʋaːɦ nɪˈjəm]; Bengali: বিবাহ নিয়ম, pronounced [ˈbibaɦo ˈni̯om]; Car: Chööngö Inpihö,[37] pronounced [ˈcɤːŋɤ inˈpihɤ]
  2. ^ Nyeda is the core of the marriage system in Nyishi culture, and involves various rituals and betrothal gifts. Among the Hruso, arranged marriage (Hruso: mukho kiinye gzeeu) involves a negotiator, usually a relative of the groom or an elderly community member, being called upon to visit the bride's household and negotiate the marriage proposal on behalf of the groom's parents.[49] The Wancho similarly recognise negotiation marriage (Wancho: अरुत तोइशम, arut toisham), and the Galo also recognise negotiation marriage (Gallong: nyida tatnam) where the parents decide the marriage without the consent of their child.[50]
  3. ^ Kashmiri: لانژھ, pronounced [lãːt͡sʰ]; Dogri: किन्नर, pronounced [ˈkɪnːəɾ]; Hindi: हिजड़ा, pronounced [ˈɦɪdʒɽaː]; Urdu: ہِجڑا, pronounced [ˈɦɪdʒɽaː]
  4. ^ The kupya-chele (ಕುಪ್ಯ-ಚೇಲೆ in Kodava) consists of the kupya, a wraparound robe, and the chele, a gold-embroidered silk sash worn around the waist. The kupya-chele is worn by men on ceremonial occasions.
  5. ^ The gāṭi muḍa (ଗାଟି ମୁଡ in Kui) is traditionally paid to the parents of the bride by the groom.
  6. ^ Tamil: உள்நாட்டு கூட்டு, pronounced [ˈuɭn̪aːʈːɯ ˈkuːʈːɯ]; Telugu: దేశీయ భాగస్వామ్యం, pronounced [ˈd̪eːʃiːja ˈbʱaːgasʋaːmjam]; Malayalam: ഗാര്ഹിക പങ്കാളിത്തം, pronounced [ˈgaːɾhigə paŋˈgaːɭit̪ːam]; French: partenariat enregistré, pronounced [paʁtənaʁja ɑ̃ʁəʒistʁe]
  7. ^ Nepali: विवाह ऐन, pronounced [ˈbiba̤ː ˈʌi̯nʌ]; Sikkimese: གཉེན་གི་ཁིམས,[187] pronounced [ɲɛ̃́gì ʈʰìm]; Lepcha: ᰓᰥᰧᰠᰦ ᰝᰥᰧᰮᰶ,[188] pronounced [briˈsa ʈʰrim]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Mathur, Vaishali (June 2020). "Homosexual Live-in relationship in India: Socio Legal Dimension in reference to Right to life or Social stigma". International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 24 (8): 14989–14995. ISSN 1475-7192.
  2. ^ "Indian High Court Reaffirms Same-sex Couples' Right to Cohabitation". Human Rights Pulse. 9 August 2020. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  3. ^ a b c "Jharkhand: Same sex couple ties knot at Koderma temple, says they plan to legalise marriage". The Times of India. 7 December 2020.
  4. ^ a b c AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (1991), Less than Gay: A Citizens' Report on the Status of Homosexuality in India (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016
  5. ^ Livemint (28 August 2022). "Supreme Court on unmarried partnerships, queer relationships: 'Family unit..'". mint. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  6. ^ Staff, The Wire (17 October 2023). "SC Doesn't Legalise Marriage Equality, 2 of 5 Judges Says Queer Couples Must Be Given Legal Rights". The Wire. New Delhi. Archived from the original on 17 October 2023. Retrieved 17 October 2023.
  7. ^ Ahsan, Sofi (17 October 2023). "States free to enact laws recognising same-sex marriage in absence of central law: Supreme Court". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 18 October 2023.
  8. ^ "Most marriages not registered despite Act making it mandatory". The Times of India. 13 August 2015. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 22 December 2023.
  9. ^ Johari, Aarefa (16 July 2017). "Should marriage registration be mandatory? Only if the process is simplified, say couples". Scroll.in. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  10. ^ "India: Supreme Court Rules on Mandatory Marriage Registration". Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  11. ^ "Live-In Relationship And Indian Judiciary". The SCC Online Blog. 23 January 2019. Archived from the original on 17 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2020.
  12. ^ a b "Orissa HC green signals same sex live-in relationships". The Leaflet. 26 August 2020.
  13. ^ "India's Supreme Court widens definition of familial relationships". ChannelNewsAsia. 31 August 2022.
  14. ^ "SC Redefines Concept of Family: Same-sex Couples Entitled to Protection of Law". NewsClick. 29 August 2022.
  15. ^ "Insurance for same-sex partners? Here's how it works". CNBCTV18. 24 August 2019. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  16. ^ Livemint (7 June 2022). "HealthySure to include LGBTQ+ in group health insurance policy". mint. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  17. ^ "சிறப்பு திருமணச் சட்டம் - ஒரு பார்வை". Keetru (in Tamil). 13 September 2009.
  18. ^ "ਬਲਾਗ: 'ਲਵ ਜੇਹਾਦ', ਮੁਹੱਬਤ ਅਤੇ 'ਸਪੈਸ਼ਲ ਮੈਰਿਜ ਐਕਟ'". BBC News (in Punjabi). 29 December 2017.
  19. ^ "വിവാഹം രജിസ്ടര്‍ ചെയ്യുന്നത് എങ്ങനെ , അറിയേണ്ടതെല്ലാം". Kerala Family (in Malayalam). 17 November 2016.
  20. ^ "લગ્ન કરવા માટેની વયમર્યાદા ૨૧ વર્ષથી ઘટાડીને ૧૮ વર્ષ કરવા લો કમિશનનું સુચન". Akila News (in Gujarati). 2 September 2018.
  21. ^ "বিশেষ বিবাহ আইন, ১৯৫৪" (PDF). legislative.gov.in (in Bengali).
  22. ^ "NCP MP Supriya Sule introduces bill in Parl on legalising same-sex marriage". The Hindustan Times. 1 April 2022.
  23. ^ "NCP's Supriya Sule brings Bill to legalise same-sex marriage". The Indian Express. 2 April 2022. Retrieved 2 April 2022.
  24. ^ "A new UCC for a new India? Progressive draft UCC allows for same-sex marriages - Catchnews". Catchnews. Retrieved 12 October 2017.
  25. ^ "Triple Talaq: Ban this un-Islamic practice and bring in a uniform civil code". Hindustan Times. 22 November 2017.
  26. ^ "Uniform Civil Code in India" (PDF).
  27. ^ "Deadline for response on Uniform Civil Code extended till May 6". Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  28. ^ "On uniform civil code, Law panel asks Muslim groups: Why deny some rights to women". 26 May 2018.
  29. ^ "Muslim intellectual proposes a revolutionary Uniform Civil Code". The Statesman. Archived from the original on 1 December 2016. Retrieved 30 November 2016.
  30. ^ "No plan to legalise same-sex marriage: Ravi Shankar Prasad in Rajya Sabha". The New Indian Express. 7 February 2020.
  31. ^ Sarda, Kanu; Sharma, Nalini (29 September 2023). "Law panel report on Uniform Civil Code to exclude same-sex marriage: Sources". India Today.
  32. ^ "Most marriages not registered despite Act making it mandatory". The Times of India. 13 August 2015.
  33. ^ Aggarwal, Shobha (16 June 2023). "Demand for Same-sex Marriage Raised by ABVA in 1991: Its Campaign Continues Even as Court Verdict is Awaited". CounterCurrents.org.
  34. ^ "Homosexuality And The Indian". Archived from the original on 9 May 2008.
  35. ^ "Lesbians forced to live in anonymity in India". Archived from the original on 11 December 2008.
  36. ^ a b "India's top court says it does not have the power to legalise same-sex marriage". France24. 17 October 2023.
  37. ^ Whitehead, George (1993). Dictionary of the Car-Nicobarese Language. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 8120608666.
  38. ^ "Andaman And Nicobar Islands Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1958" (PDF). indiacode.nic.in. Retrieved 10 December 2023.
  39. ^ "Central Law For Compulsory Registration Of Marriages". sansad.in. Retrieved 10 December 2023.
  40. ^ a b "Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002" (PDF). gramawardsachivalayam.ap.gov.in. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 January 2023. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  41. ^ a b c d Vanita, Ruth (2009). "Same-sex weddings, Hindu traditions and modern India" (PDF). Feminist Review. 91 (91): 47–60. doi:10.1057/fr.2008.45. JSTOR 40663979. S2CID 53055203.
  42. ^ a b "First in Telugu States, gay couple to announce their wedding in December". The Hindu. 31 October 2021. Archived from the original on 8 January 2023. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  43. ^ a b Farooq, Omer (19 December 2021). "Indian gay couple wed despite uncertainty over gay marriage". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 8 January 2023. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  44. ^ a b "Gay couple ties the knot in Hyderabad, say no permission needed for 'happiness'". Hindustan Times. 20 December 2021. Archived from the original on 8 January 2023. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  45. ^ "Kadapa Women: లేచిపోయి పెళ్లి చేసుకున్న అమ్మాయిలు.. పోలీస్ స్టేషన్లో షాకింగ్ పంచాయితీ.., చివర్లో..." Telugu News18 (in Telugu). 11 August 2022. Archived from the original on 8 January 2023. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  46. ^ "Religion and sexuality: Sweetie, a Shiva Shakti". The Guardian. 22 November 2008. Archived from the original on 8 January 2023. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  47. ^ "Shiv-Shakthis in the Hijra / Transgender Context". india.lawi.asia. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  48. ^ "Arunachal Pradesh Recording of Marriage Act, 2008". Indianemployees.com. Retrieved 31 December 2023.
  49. ^ a b Mibang, Tamo; Beher, M. C. (2006). Marriage and Culture: Reflections from Tribal Societies of Arunachal Pradesh, Volume 1. Mittal Publications. ISBN 8183241689.
  50. ^ Kardong, Nirupoma (2021). "Marriage System of the Galos of Arunachal Pradesh" (PDF). Skylines of Anthropology. 1 (1): 48–57.
  51. ^ "Assam To Recognize Sikh Marriages Under Anand Marriage Act". NDTV. 3 August 2023.
  52. ^ "হিন্দু, মুছলমান, খ্ৰীষ্টান, পাৰ্চীকে কৰি অন্যান্য ধৰ্মৰ বিবাহ আইন এটা হ'বনে; সমিতিখনে ৩ মাহৰ ভিতৰত দাখিল কৰিব ইয়াৰ প্ৰতিবেদন". News18. 25 October 2022.
  53. ^ "Issue No. 72" (PDF). Bodo News Daily. Kokrajhar. 16 September 2021.
  54. ^ "Special Marriage Rules, 1988" (PDF). Gauhati High Court. Retrieved 9 December 2023.
  55. ^ "Rajasthan, Assam and Andhra oppose plea on same-sex marriage". Indian Express. New Delhi. 11 May 2023.
  56. ^ Hussain, Syed Zarir (12 July 2009). "Assam's first lesbian couple happily married for 10 years". TwoCircles.net.
  57. ^ Bhattacharjee, Gayatri (29 December 2009). "Defying stigma, Assam women tie the knot". NDTV.
  58. ^ Devi, Tulika (13 May 2023). "Love in the Time of SC Verdict: Guwahati Woman Gets Engaged to Same-Sex Partner, Pictures Go Viral". News18.
  59. ^ "Bihar Marriages Registration Rules, 2006". bareactslive.com. Retrieved 17 November 2023.
  60. ^ a b Som, Moyurie (8 May 2023). "Same-sex marriage: What Opposition parties feel about legalising gay marriage". Times of India. Archived from the original on 8 May 2023. Retrieved 8 May 2023.
  61. ^ "Same-sex lovers elope to marry in Bihar, one jailed". Hindustan Times. 9 May 2017.
  62. ^ "Two girls elope, marry each other in Bihar". IndiaTVNews. 22 October 2023.
  63. ^ "Gay couple tie knot in Bihar's Khagaria, separated by family". ETV Bharat. 17 August 2022.
  64. ^ a b c "Look into threat of life to two female live-in partners: High court to Mohali SSP". Hindustan Times. 21 July 2020.
  65. ^ a b c "High Court protection for same-sex couple in live-in relationship". The Tribune. 18 August 2023.
  66. ^ "Chhattigsarh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006". bareactslive.com. Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  67. ^ "Transgenders get married in Raipur mass wedding". Business Standard. 31 March 2019.
  68. ^ Smith, Reiss (8 July 2019). "Indian high court dismisses plea for gay marriage". PinkNews.
  69. ^ a b c "Delhi High Court asks Centre to respond to plea to recognise same sex marriages under law". The Economic Times. 19 November 2020.
  70. ^ "Dr Kavita Arora & Anr vs Union of India" (PDF). Reddy & Reddy Law Firm.
  71. ^ "Can acts dealing with marriages be read to apply to same-sex marriages – to be decided by Delhi HC". Reddy & Reddy Law Firm. 8 January 2021.
  72. ^ Jordan Hirst (18 January 2021). "This lesbian couple is fighting for the right to marry in India". qnews.com.au.
  73. ^ a b "Delhi HC fixes for final hearing pleas to recognise same-sex marriages under law". The Hindu. 25 October 2021.
  74. ^ "Court extends Centre last chance to reply to pleas seeking recognition for same-sex marriage". The Hindu. 8 January 2021.
  75. ^ "Centre opposes petitions for same-sex marriage". Hindustan Times. 26 February 2021. Retrieved 17 March 2021.
  76. ^ "Centre opposes same-sex marriage in Delhi HC, says not comparable with 'Indian family unit concept'". The Indian Express. 26 February 2021. Retrieved 17 March 2021.
  77. ^ "Delhi HC Issues Notice On A Petition Seeking Recognition Of Same-Sex Marriages Under Special Marriage Act". LiveLaw.in. 27 February 2021.
  78. ^ "No one is dying due to lack of marriage registration: Centre tells HC on same-sex marriage plea". India Today. 24 May 2021.
  79. ^ "'Nobody Is Dying Because They Don't Have Marriage Certificates' :Centre Opposes Urgent Hearing Of Plea For Same-Sex Marriage Recognition". LiveLaw.in. 24 May 2021.
  80. ^ "Delhi HC notice to Centre on plea seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage". The Indian Express. 7 July 2021.
  81. ^ Shrey Agarwal (6 July 2021). "Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Recognition To Same-Sex Marriages In Citizenship Act, Special Marriage Act & Foreign Marriage Act". LiveLaw.in.
  82. ^ "HC seeks Centre's response on plea to live-stream proceedings on same-sex marriages". The Hindu. 31 March 2022.
  83. ^ Saxena, Akshita (1 December 2021). "Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Pleas Seeking Recognition Of Marriage Of Lesbian Couples, Transgender Persons". LiveLaw.in.
  84. ^ "Same-Sex Marriage: Delhi High Court To Hear Plea Today, Centre Opposes Live Streaming Of Proceedings". Abplive.com. 17 May 2022.
  85. ^ "Live streaming of same-sex marriages case: Delhi High Court takes exception to Centre's affidavit". Indian Express. 17 May 2022.
  86. ^ "Same-sex marriage: Delhi HC to hear pleas for live streaming of proceedings on December 6". Retrieved 7 November 2022.
  87. ^ "Delhi HC transfers same-sex marriage petitions to Supreme Court". Hindustan Times. New Delhi. 31 January 2023.
  88. ^ a b "Portuguese Civil Code" (PDF). www.indiacode.nic.in. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
  89. ^ Rastogi, Anubhuti (24 January 2019). "Uniform Civil Code". Law Times Journal.
  90. ^ Doctor, Vikram (28 August 2022). "A history of how Goa overcame prejudice to open its arms to the queer community". Scroll-in.
  91. ^ "Gay marriages on the rise". The Times of India. Panaji. 27 August 2006.
  92. ^ "Goa trust speaks up for rights of state's 10,000-strong LGBT community". Business Standard. 23 April 2023.
  93. ^ Kulkarni, Srushti (16 February 2022). "TravelIsLove: Lesbian Partners Paromita And Surabhi Reveal Their Grand Goa Wedding Plans". Travel and Leisure.
  94. ^ Tinkhede, Shreya (13 January 2022). "[EXCLUSIVE] A glimpse into lesbian couple Paromita Mukherjee and Surabhi Mitra's heartwarming love story". Times Now News.
  95. ^ "Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006" (PDF). indiacode.nic.in. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  96. ^ "Manvendra Singh Gohil: 'Many Indian families, priests have accepted same-sex marriages'". www.moneycontrol.com. 25 March 2023.
  97. ^ a b c "Rights in Intimate relationships" (PDF). Feminist Law Archives. April 2010.
  98. ^ "ગુજરાત પોલીસના 'પ્રથમ' લેસ્બિયન કપલની મદદે આવી ગુજરાત હાઈકોર્ટ". Gujarati News (in Gujarati). 1 August 2020.
  99. ^ Omkar Khandekar (5 October 2020). "Same-sex couples in India are using a Gujarati practice to get 'married'". lifestyle.livemint.com.
  100. ^ Verma, Himanshu (1 July 2022). "Common Law Marriages: A Ray of Hope for LGBTQ Couples". BNW Journal.
  101. ^ "Haryana Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2008" (PDF). indiacoee.nic.in. Retrieved 30 September 2023.
  102. ^ Jones, Sophia (29 July 2011). "Lesbian newlyweds flee honor killing threats in India".
  103. ^ "Four gay couples tie the knot in Chandigarh". Deccan Herald. 9 July 2009.
  104. ^ a b "Supriyo v. Union of India" (PDF). main.sci.gov.in. p. 86. Retrieved 19 November 2023.
  105. ^ "Monu Rajput v. State and Ors. W.P. (Crl.) 1879/2019 and Crl. M.A. 30835/2019". lawandsexuality. 10 February 2020. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  106. ^ Shukla, Surabhi (2020). "The L World: Legal Discourses on Queer Women" (PDF). NUJS Law Review. 13 (3): 564–592. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 October 2020.
  107. ^ "Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1997" (PDF). mcslogin.hp.gov.in. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
  108. ^ "Sweety (Eunuch) v General Public". South Asian Translaw Database. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
  109. ^ Narag, Diya (2021). "Case Comment on Sweety (Eunuch) Vs General Public (2016)". International Journal of Law Management and Humanities. 4 (3): 1729–1733.
  110. ^ "Same-sex marriage in Himachal: Couple approaches police after outcry". ETV Bharat. 26 April 2022.
  111. ^ "Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Marriages Registration Act, 1981" (PDF). www.indiacode.nic.in. Retrieved 3 February 2024.
  112. ^ "Anand Marriage Act implemented in Jammu & Kashmir". Hindustan Times. 13 December 2023.
  113. ^ "Lesbian marriage falls apart; woman slits wrists in Indian court". Advocate. 6 July 2007.
  114. ^ Rafiq, Shefali (21 December 2021). "A glimpse into the lives of transgender people in Kashmir". openDemocracy.
  115. ^ "Jharkhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2017" (PDF). PRS India. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
  116. ^ Deogharia, Jaideep (29 April 2023). "Political parties steer clear of same-sex marriage topic". The Times of India.
  117. ^ English-Santali dictionary. Bavarian State Library. 1850. p. 58.
  118. ^ Hahn, Ferd. (1903). Kurukh Orao English Dictionary Part I. Bengal Secretariat Press.
  119. ^ "Karnataka Marriage (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 2006". Bare Acts Live. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
  120. ^ "Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976". Bare Acts Live. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
  121. ^ "Kerala gay couple gets married in Bengaluru". Kaumudi. 30 December 2019.
  122. ^ "In pictures: Meet the two gay couples from Kerala who recently got married". The News Minute. 31 December 2019.
  123. ^ "Gay Wedding in US in Traditional Kodava Attire Angers Martial Community Back Home in Karnataka". News18. 9 October 2020.
  124. ^ Devaiah, Darshan (11 October 2020). "After use of traditional attire in gay marriage ceremony, Kodava body calls for boycott of California doctor". The Indian Express.
  125. ^ Bhat, Prajwal (11 October 2020). "Be on right side of history: Gay couple to Kodavas outraging over their wedding attire". The News Minute.
  126. ^ Kalasa, Soumya (16 August 2022). "Lesbian Wedding Is A Tradition Within This Karnataka Community; Here's Why". News 18.
  127. ^ Chakre, Sushma (17 August 2022). "ಉತ್ತರ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಈ ಜಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಷ್ಟೋ ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ ಸಲಿಂಗ ವಿವಾಹ; ಕಾರಣ ಗೊತ್ತಾ?". TV9 Kannada (in Kannada).
  128. ^ "Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008" (PDF). Kerala Gazette. Retrieved 9 September 2022.
  129. ^ "സ്വവർഗ വിവാഹത്തെ എതിർത്ത് കേന്ദ്രം; നിയമപരമായി അംഗീകാരമുള്ള രാജ്യങ്ങള്‍ ഏതെല്ലാം?". malayalam.news18.com (in Malayalam). 13 March 2023.
  130. ^ a b c d e "Section 377 anniversary: Half of country still doesn't approve of same sex relationships". India Today.
  131. ^ "സ്വവര്‍ഗ്ഗ വിവാഹം നിയമപരമാക്കണമെന്ന് കേരളത്തിലെ യുവജനങ്ങള്‍". Mathrubhumi (in Malayalam). 26 March 2021. Retrieved 29 March 2021.
  132. ^ "Gay Couple Moves Kerala HC For Recognition Of Homosexual Marriages Under Special Marriage Act". LiveLaw. 27 January 2020. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
  133. ^ "Writ Petition (Civil) filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India" (PDF). www.livelaw.in.
  134. ^ Joshi, Sonam (3 January 2022). "Law says their marriage isn't valid. These gay couples did it anyway". The Times of India.
  135. ^ Abraham, Bobins (28 January 2020). "Kerala's 1st Gay Couple Who Got Married In A Temple Move High Court To Get Marriage Registered". India Times.
  136. ^ "Writ Petition (Civil) filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India" (PDF). images.assettype.com. Retrieved 9 September 2022.
  137. ^ "United by love, 'divided' by law". Retrieved 7 November 2022.
  138. ^ "Breaking: Two Men Move Supreme Court Seeking Recognition of SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Under the Special Marriage Act". LiveLaw.in. 25 November 2022.
  139. ^ "Kerala high court lets lesbian couple live together". The Times of India. 25 September 2018.
  140. ^ Pritam Das, Sakshi (16 June 2022). "Can same-sex couple live together under one roof?". The Leaflet.
  141. ^ George, Anjana (8 June 2022). "How two Kerala women won the right to love". Times of India.
  142. ^ "Fatima and Adhila can now live together, no ban on adults, rules High Court". Kaumudi. 31 May 2020.
  143. ^ Sharma, Divyam (28 November 2022). "Pics: Gay Couple, Reunited By Kerala High Court In May, Now Exchange Rings". NDTV.
  144. ^ Meryl, Sebastian (26 November 2022). "Noora and Adhila: Kerala lesbian 'brides' in 'wedding' photoshoot". BBC News.
  145. ^ Hazarika, Abhimanyu (6 February 2023). "Supreme Court stays Kerala High Court proceedings on plea by lesbian woman against HC order directing counselling for detained partner". Bar and Bench.
  146. ^ Sinha, Bhadra (6 February 2023). "SC agrees to hear same-sex couple's plea challenging Kerala HC-ordered counselling". The Print.
  147. ^ "Kerala may consider altering marriage registration rules to include transgender persons". The Hindu. 5 February 2023. Archived from the original on 7 February 2023.
  148. ^ "Kerala witnesses first transgender marriage". The Indian Express. 11 May 2018.
  149. ^ "Registration of Marriages (Ladakh) Regulations, 2022" (PDF). Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  150. ^ Gielen, Uwe (1998). "Gender roles in traditional Tibetan cultures". In L.L Adler (Ed.), International Handbook on Gender Roles. Westport, CT: Greenwood.: 413–437.
  151. ^ Wilson, Jeff (20 June 2009). "Homosexuality, Marriage, and Religion in Tibet: An Endlessly Complicated Situation". Tricycle.
  152. ^ "Judicial Setup". Government of Lakshadweep. Retrieved 17 November 2023.
  153. ^ "Madhya Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2008'". Bare Acts Live. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
  154. ^ Singh, Khushwant (30 June 1993). "Gay Angst". India Today. Archived from the original on 1 October 2023.
  155. ^ "Madhya Pradesh urges SC not to rush into granting legal sanction to same-sex marriage as social fabric will be ripped apart". The Print. 3 May 2023.
  156. ^ "Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998" (PDF). India Code. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  157. ^ US-based IIT grad marries gay partner in Maharashtra The Times of India, 13 January 2018
  158. ^ Jackman, Josh (10 February 2019). "Gay couple holds the first same-sex wedding party in Mumbai". PinkNews.
  159. ^ a b Flynn, JD (22 December 2023). "Is the 'false narrative' narrative a false narrative?". The Pillar. Archived from the original on 23 December 2023. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
  160. ^ a b Coppen, Luke (19 December 2023). "'Fiducia supplicans': Who's saying what?". The Pillar.
  161. ^ "Manipur Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2008" (PDF). Manipur Gazette. 30 October 2013.
  162. ^ "Manipur gets its first gay married couple". NDTV. 26 March 2010.
  163. ^ "The Emergence of a Transgender Community in Manipur: The Case of the Nupi Maanbis". SageJournals. 27 (2). 16 April 2020.
  164. ^ "Meghalaya Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2012" (PDF). prsindia.org. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  165. ^ "Meghalaya: Shillong Catholic Church 'thumbs down' to gay sex". NorthEast Now. 18 September 2018.
  166. ^ a b "Catholic priests can bless same-sex couples in Meghalaya: Church". Deccan Herald. 23 December 2023.
  167. ^ "The Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014" (PDF). The Mizoram Gazette. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 April 2022. Retrieved 2 April 2022.
  168. ^ Lungchuang, Ruata (8 April 2023). "Third gender in Mizo society: An unflinching look at past and present". EastMojo.
  169. ^ "Nagaland's MSM community looks to future with hope". The Morung Express. 1 November 2019.
  170. ^ "NPF opposes same-sex marriage: Azo". Nagaland Page. 11 May 2023.
  171. ^ "Two Orissa women defy norms, get married". The Times of India. 4 November 2006.
  172. ^ "Odisha: Two girls who married each other, back with relatives after police intervention". The Nw Indian Express. 13 July 2018.
  173. ^ "Odisha registers first lesbian marriage, bride's father blames black magic". edexlive.com. 14 January 2019.
  174. ^ "Harassed by family, Odisha gay couple threatens to commit suicide". India Today. 16 January 2019.
  175. ^ a b ""Transwoman A 'Bride' Under Hindu Marriage Act": Madras HC; Also Bans Sex Re-Assignment Surgeries On Intersex Children [Read Judgment]". 23 April 2019. Archived from the original on 12 July 2019. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
  176. ^ "Punjab Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2012" (PDF). Punjab Government Gazette. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
  177. ^ "Punjab sub-inspector's same-sex marriage in a grand ceremony is breaking taboos around homosexuality". The Indian Express. 26 April 2017.
  178. ^ "Big fat wedding: Female police sub-inspector in Punjab marries same-sex partner in Jalandhar". India Today. 25 April 2017.
  179. ^ a b Singh, Namita (28 September 2023). "Same-sex couple's wedding in India sparks backlash from highest cleric in Sikhism". The Independent.
  180. ^ "Provide protection to gay couple: High court to Ludhiana police". The Times of India. 2 November 2019.
  181. ^ "Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2009" (PDF). prsindia.org (in Hindi). Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  182. ^ Raniwala, Praachi (15 June 2023). "This queer couple who met on a dating app got married in Jaisalmer". Vogue India.
  183. ^ Saravaiya, Nupur (1 February 2020). "Inside Ayesha Nageshwaran and Katja Hahnloser-Nageshwaran's multicultural wedding". Vogue India.
  184. ^ Anjum, Tabeenah (10 May 2023). "Rajasthan Govt Says Same-Sex Marriages Will Create Imbalance In Social Fabric, Activists Term It 'Insensitive'". Outlook.
  185. ^ "Filmmaker accuses Congress of 'betrayal' over Rajasthan's same-sex marriage stance, Shashi Tharoor responds". Livemint. 11 May 2023.
  186. ^ "Nata Pratha, a Tradition That Allows Men and Women to Live With Person of Their Choice". The Citizen. 10 May 2017.
  187. ^ Yliniemi, Juha Sakari (18 November 2021). "A descriptive grammar of Denjongke". Himalayan Linguistics. 20 (1). doi:10.5070/H920146466. ISSN 1544-7502. S2CID 244424106.
  188. ^ Plaisier, Heleen (2007). A grammar of Lepcha. Tibetan studies library: Languages of the greater Himalayan region. Vol. 5. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-15525-1.
  189. ^ "SJA organises deliberation on local laws of Sikkim" (PDF). Sikkim Herald. 7 August 2020.
  190. ^ "Special Marriage Act to be applicable to Sikkim". The Times of India. 14 October 2019.
  191. ^ "Against mass sentiments, disorder: Here's what opposing states said on same-sex marriage". India Today. 10 May 2023.
  192. ^ "The Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009". bareactslive.com. Retrieved 2 April 2022.
  193. ^ "Politics and Society Between Elections 2019" (PDF). Lokniti. 2019.
  194. ^ Shukla, Agatha (19 November 2023). "Madras HC Asks State To Consider Recognizing And Registering 'Deed Of Familial Association' Between LGBTQIA+ Couples To Give 'Respect And Status' To Relationship". Verdictum.
  195. ^ Shalini Lobo (21 May 2019). "In a first in Tamil Nadu, man-transwoman couple get married legally". India Today. Archived from the original on 23 July 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2022.
  196. ^ "In A First, Marriage Between Man And Transwoman Registered In Thoothukudi". NDTV. 21 May 2019.
  197. ^ "In a first, marriage between man, transwoman set to be registered". The Hindu. Thoothukudi. 21 May 2019.
  198. ^ "Can the Hindu Marriage Act be interpreted to allow same-sex marriages? – The Leaflet". theleaflet.in. 17 May 2022. Retrieved 11 December 2022.
  199. ^ "Arunkumar v. The Inspector General of Registration". Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 5 September 2022.
  200. ^ Kundu, Bipasha (28 January 2022). "Do same sex couples have the right to marry?". The Leaflet.
  201. ^ "Tamil Woman Marries her Bangladeshi Lover in a Same-Sex Marriage in Chennai". The Sentinel. 3 September 2022.
  202. ^ "'இனி, உனக்காக நான்... எனக்காக நீ!' - திருமணம் செய்து கொண்ட தன்பால் ஈர்ப்பாளர் தம்பதி!". Vikatan (in Tamil). 11 July 2022.
  203. ^ "Aravan's brides". The New Indian Express. 18 April 2009.
  204. ^ "Telangana Compulsory Registration of Marriages, Act 2002" (PDF). www.indiacode.nic.in. Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  205. ^ "Tripura Recording of Marriage Act, 2003" (PDF). thc.nic.in. Retrieved 1 October 2023.
  206. ^ Deb, Debraj (14 September 2022). "Smashing gender stereotypes & stigma, Tripura's first pride rally sends out loud and clear message". The Indian Express. Agartala. Archived from the original on 15 September 2022.
  207. ^ "Tripura VHP writes to Chief Justice of India against same-sex marriage pleas". Hindustan Times. 2 May 2023.
  208. ^ "Yogi Adityanath government makes marriage registration mandatory". The Times of India. 2 August 2017.
  209. ^ "Same sex marriage: Agra sees a different love story". Deccan Herald. 23 April 2018.
  210. ^ "Two lesbians in India divorce husbands to marry each other". PinkNews. 2 January 2019.
  211. ^ "Lesbian couple in Uttar Pradesh village seeks police protection to marry". India Today. 20 June 2019.
  212. ^ "Uttar Pradesh: Kanpur Man Files FIR Against His In-Laws For Misleading Him To Marry A Transgender". The Times of India. 21 June 2021.
  213. ^ "Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh". South Asian Translaw Database. Retrieved 30 September 2023.
  214. ^ "High Court Rejects Plea By 2 Women Over Same-Sex "Marriage". Here's Why". NDTV. 14 April 2022.
  215. ^ "Allahabad HC rejects 2 women's plea to recognise their 'marriage'". National Herald India. 14 April 2022.
  216. ^ "UP Govt Opposes Same-Sex Marriage, Calls It 'Against Indian Culture' At Allahabad High Court". The Logical Indian. 15 April 2023.
  217. ^ "Uttarakhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2010". bareactslive.com. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  218. ^ "'Same sex couples can live together': Uttarakhand HC". Hindustan Times. 20 June 2020.
  219. ^ Shukla, Surabhi (10 July 2020). "Madhu Bala v. State of Uttarakhand and Others Habeas Corpus Petition No. 8 of 2020". Law & Sexuality.
  220. ^ "Uttarakhand HC Orders Police Protection to Gay Couple in Live-In Relationship". The Wire. Retrieved 29 August 2023.
  221. ^ "Live-in, LGBT rights, consent considered in Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code draft: Sources". India Today. 1 July 2023.
  222. ^ "Legal rights for LGBTQ couples unlikely in Uttarakhand's UCC draft bill". The New Indian Express. 28 June 2023.
  223. ^ "West Bengal Hindu Marriages Registration Rules, 2010" (PDF). www.shadesofknife.in. Retrieved 26 November 2023.
  224. ^ "Gay couple gets married in Kolkata; pictures take internet by storm". Economic Times. 5 July 2022.
  225. ^ Roy, Suryagni (11 May 2023). "'We are not living with dignity': Gay couple who tied the knot seeks legalisation of same-sex marriage". India Today. Kolkata.
  226. ^ Chakraborty, Shamayita (25 June 2019). "Despite social marriage, gay couples stil yearn for legal rights". The Times of India.
  227. ^ rajkumar, surya. "The 377 Judgment, LGBT Discrimination and Gay Marriage". The Citizen. Archived from the original on 25 August 2019. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  228. ^ "Shakti Vahini vs Union Of India on 27 March 2018". Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  229. ^ "SC seeks Centre's response on legalising same-sex marriages". Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  230. ^ "Delhi HC To Hear Pleas Seeking Recognition Of Same-Sex Marriages On April 24". Outlook India. 6 December 2022. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
  231. ^ "Delhi HC to hear pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriages on April 24". The Print. 6 December 2022. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
  232. ^ "How India's Supreme Court Could Make Same-Sex Marriage Legal". Time. 18 January 2023.
  233. ^ "Same-sex marriage will cause havoc: Sushil Modi objects to legalising gay marriages". ANI News.
  234. ^ "Supreme Court Transfers To Itself Petitions Pending In High Courts For Recognition Of Same-Sex Marriage". Retrieved 6 January 2023.
  235. ^ Roy, Debayan (13 March 2023). "[BREAKING] Plea before Supreme Court for recognition of same-sex marriages to be heard by Constitution Bench". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news.
  236. ^ Tiwary, Deeptiman (14 March 2023). "RSS backs govt stand on same-sex marriage, says 'in Hindu philosophy, marriage a sanskar'". The Indian Express. Retrieved 15 March 2023.
  237. ^ Bakshi, Gursimran Kaur (31 March 2023). "'Bharatiya marriage traditions' threatened by legalisation of same-sex marriage, former high court judges claim in public statement". theleaflet.in. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
  238. ^ Sahgal, Kanav N. (4 April 2023). "Misinformation and bigotry: Exposing the misleading arguments of the 21 retired judges opposing same-sex marriage in India". theleaflet.in. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
  239. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021), HIV Surveillance Report: Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2019 (PDF) (Report), vol. 32, Atlanta, United States: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, p. 19, archived from the original (PDF) on 19 June 2021
  240. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022), HIV Surveillance Report: Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2020 (PDF) (Report), vol. 33, Atlanta, United States: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, p. 23, archived from the original (PDF) on 24 May 2022
  241. ^ "Jamaat-e-Islami Hind opposes same-sex marriages", Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (Press Release), 15 March 2023, archived from the original on 15 March 2023
  242. ^ Shamsi, Mohammed Safi (15 March 2023). "AIMPLB backs Centre's stance against same-sex marriage". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 16 March 2023.
  243. ^ Parab-Pandit, Shefali (16 March 2023). "Mumbai: Religious leaders decry same-sex unison". The Free Press Journal. Archived from the original on 16 March 2023.
  244. ^ Chitre, Manjiri (24 April 2023). "'Lost your minds?': Mahua Moitra slams BCI for opposing same-sex marriage case in SC". Hindustan Times.
  245. ^ a b "How people in 24 countries view same-sex marriage". Pew Research Center. 13 June 2023.
  246. ^ "Supreme Court: India court hears historic same sex marriage case". BBC News. 17 April 2023. Retrieved 18 April 2023.
  247. ^ "Centre's multiple attempts to delay hearing on same-sex marriages". India Today. 19 April 2023. Archived from the original on 27 June 2023. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  248. ^ Mahapatra, Dhananjay (19 April 2023). "There's no absolute concept of man or woman, says CJI Chandrachud". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 27 June 2023. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  249. ^ Sharma, Padmakshi (18 April 2023). "Same Sex Marriage Hearing - Gender Not A Concept Of What Your Genitals Are, It Is Far More Complex: CJI DY Chandrachud Orally Remarks In Marriage Equality Case". livelaw.in. Archived from the original on 27 June 2023. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  250. ^ "No data from government to indicate it is 'urban-elitist concept': SC on same-sex marriages". The Times of India. 19 April 2023. ISSN 0971-8257. Archived from the original on 19 April 2023. Retrieved 19 April 2023.
  251. ^ Kaur Bakshi, Gursimran (30 December 2023). "A chequered year for the rainbow community". The Leaflet.
  252. ^ "Same-sex marriage: SC hints at expanding ambit of Special Marriage Act, says 'society and law have evolved'". The Economic Times. 20 April 2023.
  253. ^ "Five-judge bench led by CJI to hear pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriage".
  254. ^ "Parliament, not courts, best place to debate same-sex marriage, India minister says". Reuters. 21 April 2023 – via www.reuters.com.
  255. ^ "Parliament, not courts, best place to debate same-sex marriage, India minister says". Taiwan News. 21 April 2023.
  256. ^ "Assam, Andhra and Rajasthan opposed legalising same-sex marriage: Centre tells SC". 10 May 2023.
  257. ^ Karpuram, Ajoy; R., Sai Spandana (3 May 2023). "Plea for Marriage Equality: Constitution Bench Day #7". Supreme Court Observer.
  258. ^ "Supreme Court reserves verdict on pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage". The Times of India. 11 May 2023. ISSN 0971-8257.
  259. ^ Staff, The Wire (17 October 2023). "SC Doesn't Legalise Marriage Equality, 2 of 5 Judges Says Queer Couples Must Be Given Legal Rights". The Wire. New Delhi. Archived from the original on 17 October 2023. Retrieved 17 October 2023.
  260. ^ "India judges decline to legalise same-sex marriage". BBC News. 17 October 2023.
  261. ^ "Same-Sex Marriage Verdict LIVE Updates: SC refuses to give marriage equality rights to LGBTQIA+ community in India". Mint. 17 October 2023.
  262. ^ "Plea in Supreme Court seeks review of October 17 verdict on same-sex marriage". Times of India. New Delhi. 1 November 2023.
  263. ^ Anand, Utkarsh (23 November 2023). "Supreme Court agrees to consider review petitions on same-sex marriage verdict". Hindustan Times.
  264. ^ "SC agrees to consider petition to hear same-sex marriage review in open court". The Hindu. 23 November 2023.
  265. ^ Joe Morgan (11 April 2014). "India 'party of the people' promises to legalise gay sex, marriage". Gay Star News. Archived from the original on 30 July 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
  266. ^ a b Choudhury, Sunetra (22 April 2023). "Amid SC hearing, TMC, Left back same-sex marriages, many parties remain undecided". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 25 April 2023.
  267. ^ Communist Party of India (15 March 2023). "Protect Rights of LGBTQIA+ Community". Archived from the original on 25 April 2023.
  268. ^ Mehrotra, Karishma; Shih, Gerry (14 March 2023). "Indian government opposes same-sex marriage, warns of countrywide 'havoc'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 15 March 2023.
  269. ^ Zargar, Arshad (6 January 2023). "As India's top court takes up same-sex marriage, couples hope, and activists say there's a long fight ahead". CBS News. Archived from the original on 18 October 2023. Retrieved 15 February 2023.
  270. ^ Gopinathan, Raj (7 January 2023). "SubscriberWrites: Sushil Modi's stance on same-sex marriage is not supported by facts". ThePrint. Archived from the original on 19 February 2023. Retrieved 19 February 2023.
  271. ^ C.G, Manoj (14 March 2023). "Same-sex marriage: Oppn parties cautious, want SC to take the lead as it did on Section 377". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 15 March 2023. Retrieved 15 March 2023.
  272. ^ Vanita, Ruth (2010). "Same-Sex Weddings, Hindu Traditions, and Modern India". Duke University Press. 25 (4): 43–45.
  273. ^ "This Is How Many People Support Same-Sex Marriage In 23 Countries Around The World". BuzzFeed News. 29 May 2015.
  274. ^ "ILGA/RIWI Global Attitudes Survey on LGBTI People" (PDF). www.ilga.org. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. 31 December 2016.
  275. ^ "Young people and free speech". The Economist. 15 February 2017.
  276. ^ "Where is the love: 62 per cent Indians say same-sex marriages not accepted, finds Mood of the Nation poll". India Today. 25 January 2019.
  277. ^ Sengar, Shweta (2 February 2019). "Prejudice Before Love? 62 Per Cent Indians Still Don't Approve Same-Sex Marriage, Finds Survey". India Times.
  278. ^ "LGBT+ Pride 2021 Global Survey pointa to a generation gap around gender identity and sexual attraction". Ipsos. New York City. 9 June 2021. Archived from the original on 10 June 2021. Retrieved 16 June 2021.
  279. ^ Gubbala, Sneha; Miner, William (27 November 2023). "Across Asia, views of same-sex marriage vary widely". Pew Research Center.