When the Court Waited for Parliament: Supriyo and the Dilution of Article 21

This case commentary critically evaluates the Supreme Court of India’s decision in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), examining how the Court’s refusal to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages represents a regressive departure from transformative constitutionalism. Grounded in a 3:2 split, the majority held that the "right to marry" is a statutory privilege rather than a fundamental right under Article 21, delegating the authority to reform civil marriage laws exclusively to Parliament under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List. This commentary argues that the majority erroneously weaponized the doctrine of separation of powers to abdicate its role as a counter-majoritarian institution, creating an unsustainable contradiction by recognizing individual partner choice while decoupling it from state-sanctioned status. By contrasting this holding with progressive precedents like Navtej Singh Johar, Shafin Jahan, and NALSA, the paper illustrates how the Court’s self-imposed judicial deference denies queer citizens access to essential rights—such as spousal inheritance, joint adoption, and medical co-decision making. Ultimately, the paper contends that Supriyo dilutes fundamental liberties under Part III, leaving sexual minorities with rhetorical dignity while subjecting them to structural exclusion