Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1420
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Km Farida Ansari And Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 36224 of 2026
Decided On : 14-09-2026
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Civil Rights
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought legal recognition for same-sex marriage and requested the court to interpret the Special Marriage Act in a gender-neutral manner to allow such unions.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that while the right to a relationship is protected under Article 21, the conferment of legal status is a legislative function. The challenge to the SMA was found to be unsustainable.
Issues: Whether queer persons have a right to legal recognition of marriage under the SMA or Article 21, and whether the State must provide social welfare benefits to such couples.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to privacy and autonomy protects the existence of relationships but does not create an entitlement to legal marital status, which requires enacted law. However, equality and non-discrimination necessitate that the State remove discriminatory barriers to social welfare benefits for queer couples.
Result: Challenge to the SMA not made out; prayer for gender-neutral reading unsustainable.
For the Petitioner: Amar Nath Singh, Anadi Srivastava, Anju Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, Poonam Yadav, Prajjwal Yadav
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
“149. This court hereby summarizes its conclusions and directions as follows:
i. There is no unqualified right to marriage except that recognised by statute including space left by custom.
ii. An entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union – akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status upon the parties to the relationship can be only through enacted law. A sequitur of this is that the court cannot enjoin or direct the creation of such regulatory framework resulting in legal status.
iii. The finding in (i) and (ii) should not be read as to preclude queer persons from celebrating their commitment to each other, or relationship, in whichever way they wish, within the social realm.
iv. Previous judgments of this court have established that queer and LGBTQ+ couples too have the right to union or relationship (under Article 21) – 'be it mental, emotional or sexual' flowing from the right to privacy, right to choice, and autonomy. This, however, does not extend to a right to claim entitlement to any legal status for the said union or relationship.
v. The challenge to the SMA on the ground of under classification is not made out. Further, the petitioner's prayer to read various provisions in a 'gender neutral' manner so as to enable same-sex marriage, is unsustainable.
vi. Equality and non-discrimination are basic foundational rights. The indirect discriminatory impacts in relation to earned or compensatory benefits, or social welfare entitlements for which marital status is a relevant eligibility factor, for queer couples who in their exercise of choice form relationships, have to be suitably redressed and removed by the State. These measures have to be taken by the Union and State governments.”
