Back
Solicitor General Opposes Tax Benefit for Same-Sex Couples in
The has firmly opposed a plea seeking income tax benefits available to a “” for same-sex partners, arguing before the that extending such benefits would effectively amount to recognising same-sex marriage under Indian law. Solicitor General made the submissions on before Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad in a petition filed by Anurag Kalia and Akhilesh Godi, a same-sex couple challenging the of the fifth proviso to . The court has listed the matter for further arguments on .
The case stems from a 22-karat gold bracelet, described as a family heirloom, which Godi gifted to Kalia on their relationship anniversary. Under Section 56(2)(x), any money or property received by an individual during a financial year becomes taxable if its aggregate value exceeds Rs 50,000, unless the receipt falls within specified exemptions. One such exemption covers gifts received from “relatives,” defined under to include the “” of an individual. The petitioners argue that this exclusion of same-sex partners from the definition of “” violates their under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
’s Core Argument: Means Husband and Wife
Mehta contended that the expression “” in Section 56 cannot be interpreted independently of the legal meaning attached to marriage under Indian law. “Same-sex marriage is not a recognised marriage in the Indian context. So, if we understand to mean same sex people, we indirectly recognise their . Therefore, necessarily means husband and wife,” he submitted. The argued that the tax provision distinguishes between relationships based on the existence of a legally recognised marriage, not on the sexual orientation of the partners. An unmarried heterosexual couple, Mehta pointed out, would also not be treated as spouses merely because of their relationship.
The Solicitor General emphasised that the Income Tax Act, like all Indian laws, is premised on the concept of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman. “So far as India is concerned, right from the inception, pre independence and post independence, homo sexual relationship and heterosexual relationship are treated separatively and all the laws including the income tax act is based upon marriage between biological man and biological woman,” he argued.
Reliance on
The heavily relied on the ’s judgment in , which declined to recognise same-sex marriage and left the matter to . Mehta submitted that allowing the petitioners’ interpretation would amount to achieving through statutory interpretation what the apex court had explicitly left for the legislature to decide. “Recognition of a same-sex had been left to the legislature,” he said, adding that the courts cannot usurp the legislative function by redefining the term “” in a tax statute.
The Union also defended the classification under , arguing that marriage constitutes a valid basis for where there is an and a with the object of the legislation. The object of the exemption provision, the contended, is to avoid taxing gifts that flow within a recognised family unit, and that unit is defined by legally recognised marriage.
Fears
Beyond the constitutional arguments, the raised practical concerns about potential misuse. Mehta warned that expanding the meaning of “” could open the door to . “Stringent are the rules governing the exemptions in the Act…For example, what I can do is I can find out a person having no taxable income and I am transferring this amount, to evade tax… only thing I have to say is that we are in a same-sex relationship. It might happen,” he submitted. This argument underscored the ’s view that the exemption regime must be strictly confined to clearly defined legal relationships to prevent abuse.
Petitioners’ Challenge
The petitioners, represented by advocates and , have sought a declaration that the , read with the , is unconstitutional insofar as it excludes same-sex couples. Alternatively, they have asked the court to interpret “” to include same-sex partners who are in a long-term, stable relationship and are otherwise situated similarly to heterosexual couples who may be presumed to be married. During the hearing, Justice Shyam Prasad queried the use of the expression “” in other laws, including the . The maintained that the underlying concept in all statutes is a spousal relationship arising from a legally recognisable marriage, and that extending the term could create consequences across multiple areas of law, including succession, adoption, and maintenance.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This case is significant because it tests whether tax law can be used as a vehicle to indirectly expand recognition of same-sex relationships, even while the broader question of marriage equality remains pending before . If the were to interpret “” broadly for tax purposes, it could set a precedent for other statutes that rely on marital status—such as those governing inheritance, tenancy, and social security benefits. Conversely, a strict reading would reinforce the binary, heterosexual framework that currently underpins Indian family law.
The petitioners’ alternative argument—that “” should include same-sex partners in circumstances comparable to a —raises interesting questions about the nature of the . Under Hindu law, for example, a long-term cohabiting couple may be presumed to be married. The petitioners seek parity for same-sex couples in analogous situations. However, the countered that even a heterosexual couple living together without marriage would not be treated as spouses, undermining the claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
What’s at Stake?
For the legal community, the case presents a clash between textual interpretation and constitutional values. On one hand, the plain language of the Income Tax Act refers to “,” which traditionally denotes a heterosexual union. On the other hand, the petitioners argue that excluding same-sex partners from the spousal exemption amounts to discrimination that lacks a rational basis, especially given the ’s recognition of LGBTQ+ rights in cases like (decriminalising ) and the subsequent Supriyo judgment’s acknowledgment that same-sex couples deserve equal treatment in certain contexts.
The outcome could influence how other taxing statutes and social welfare laws interpret family relationships. It may also prompt the legislature to clarify the definition of “” across the statute book, something the has previously considered. For now, the will hear further arguments on , and the legal fraternity will be watching closely to see whether the court embraces a progressive interpretation or adheres strictly to legislative intent.
Conclusion
The ’s opposition to extending tax benefits to same-sex partners underscores the deep legal divide over the recognition of same-sex relationships in India. While the has opened the door to incremental change in areas like adoption and insurance, the executive branch remains resistant to any interpretation that could be seen as circumventing ’s role. The now faces the delicate task of balancing textual fidelity with the constitutional promise of equality. Its decision, whatever it may be, will have lasting implications for LGBTQ+ rights and the interpretation of family-based exemptions in Indian tax law.
