Published Paper Details:

The lexicon of privacy, autonomy, and constitutional morality has been crafted by the Supreme Court in recent times. This evolution has led to the recognition of various entitlements such as the right to privacy and the right to select a life partner. In the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case, which upheld the decriminalization of same-sex relationships, the Supreme Court delineated a detailed account of the right to intimate relations. The current study posits that the subsequent logical progression should be the establishment of marriage equality, where same-sex marriage/relationships are acknowledged on an equitable basis with traditional opposite-sex marriage. The essential legal components for such acknowledgment are already in position. The study argues that confining marriage to 'one man, one woman' constitutes impermissible sex discrimination under Articles 14 and 15, 19 & 21 of the Indian Constitution, and is evidently arbitrary. Furthermore, the article recognizes the notion of constitutional morality, which supersedes social or popular morality when construing public morality as a constraint on fundamental rights. This notion can be utilized to counter arguments that same-sex marriage undermines the sanctity of traditional opposite-sex marriage. The study also contends that 'one man, one woman' violates the right to privacy and autonomy, as well as the right to a life with dignity under Article 21. It also encroaches upon the freedom of expression, which encompasses the expression of sexual orientation. Even in instances where personal laws do come into effect, marriage equality should not be perceived as a transgression of religious freedom based on the significantly weakened 'essential religious practices' test.