Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court recognized that constitutional rights like non-discrimination, dignity, and autonomy under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 protect queer couples even without legislative recognition of same-sex marriage, demonstrating that rights protection is not contingent on specific institutional recognition.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Supriyo (2023) constitutional rights without marriage recognition: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge Constitution Bench, 3:2 on key issues): (i) Declined to legalize same-sex marriage: Recognition involves complex policy considerations best left to Parliament, (ii) BUT affirmed constitutional rights of queer couples: (a) Protection from discrimination under Articles 14, 15, (b) Right to cohabit, form relationships under Article 21, (c) Access to services (healthcare, banking, etc.) without discrimination, (iii) Rights protection not contingent on marriage recognition: Constitutional rights exist independently of specific institutional recognition, (c) Applications: (i) Anti-discrimination: Queer couples can challenge discrimination in services, employment, housing under Articles 14, 15, (ii) Relationship recognition: Right to cohabit, form relationships protected under Article 21, even without marriage recognition, (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers to queer rights, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Fundamental Rights protect individuals regardless of legislative recognition of specific institutions, (ii) Rights protection: Affirms core rights (non-discrimination, dignity) while deferring complex policy questions to legislature, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Policy decisions affecting society should be made through democratic process, not judicial fiat, (e) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain (marriage recognition), activism in rights protection (non-discrimination, dignity); balance between constitutional values and democratic legitimacy essential to constitutional democracy.