India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships. Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in August 2022, while giving a ruling on an unrelated matter (maternity leave), made a non-binding observation that the definition of a family unit includes opposite-sex and same-sex live-in relationships, declaring them equally entitled to social welfare benefits.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage or civil unions and left the matter up to the Parliament or the state legislatures to decide. Despite the legal requirement to register all marriages with the government, the majority of Hindu marriages are not registered with the government and are instead conducted through unwritten common law.
Since the 2010s, courts in several states, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, have ruled on an individual basis that live-in relationships between same-sex couples are not unlawful and entitled to legal protection. This has often only entailed limited inheritance benefits or police protection from family. Courts have also recognised guru–shishya, nātā prathā or maitri karar-type contractual relationships.
Background Marriage as a legal construct was codified during colonialism for the purpose of regulating divorce proceedings. Prior to this, there were numerous conceptions of relationships including cohabitation and marriage.
Hinduism According to the Pew Research Center, though some modern Hindus condemn same-sex marriage, others cite ancient Hindu texts, such as the Kama Sutra, that seem to condone homosexual behaviour. There have been reports of Hindu gurus performing same-sex marriages in India since at least the 1980s. Despite the legal requirement to register all marriages with the government, the majority of Hindu marriages are not registered with the government and are instead conducted through unwritten common law.
Buddhism Buddhism views marriage as a secular topic and hence conceptions of marriage vary between cultures and societies. In some Buddhist-Hindu cultures, marriage was considered to be a secular issue not sanctioned by religion. There is widespread evidence of same-sex cohabitation in the Kingdom of Kandy due to tolerance of "eating together" (i.e. "living together in the same house and sharing the same means"), though it has been argued that this was not of a homosexual nature but rather of a fraternal nature. The Sinhalese people generally did not take marriage seriously, and cohabitation was widespread with marriage being considered a by-product of successful cohabitation, which is in-line with the Buddhist view of the secular concept of marriage. Unmarried cohabitation in Dutch India (including Sri Lanka) became a punishable offence from the Dutch colonial period in 1580. Writing for the Journal of Religious Studies in 2022, Andi Fian, an alumnus from the Gadjah Mada University, argued that prohibitions against same-sex marriage in Chinese Buddhism stem from Confucianism, and that studies of Buddhism and Hinduism in India and Sri Lanka show no such prohibitions existed there.
Live-in relationships Couples in "live-in relationships" are not married to each other but live together as a cohabiting couple. Live-in relationships tend to be viewed by Indian society as taboo, but have become gradually more common among the younger population in light of the slow decline of arranged marriages. Unlike marriages, live-in relationships are not regulated by law and lack a robust, legally protected system. No law lays down the rights, benefits and commitments for parties in a live-in relationship. However, court judgments and various pieces of legislation offer various rights to such couples. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 grants domestic violence protections to women who live in a "relationship in the nature of marriage". Courts have interpreted this expression as covering live-in relationships. Following amendments in the early 2000s, the term "wife" under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 includes women who have been in live-in relationships for a "sensible period of time" for the purpose of alimony. In 2020, the Orissa High Court ruled in Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha that women in live-in relationships are protected under the 2005 domestic violence law similarly to different-sex cohabiting couples.
Since the 2010s, courts in several states, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, have ruled on an individual basis that live-in relationships between same-sex couples are not unlawful and entitled to legal protection. This has often only entailed limited inheritance benefits or police protection from family. Courts have also recognised guru–shishya, nātā prathā or maitri karar-type contractual relationships. While ruling on a maternity leave matter in Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Others on 16 August 2022, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that the definition of a family unit includes opposite-sex and same-sex live-in relationships, declaring them equally entitled to social welfare benefits. In addition, a number of companies provide services to cohabiting same-sex couples, including financial benefits, and health care benefits. On 28 August 2024, the Ministry of Finance clarified that persons in same-sex live-in relationships can open joint bank accounts and name their partners to be beneficiaries of an account in case of death. The Department of Food and Public Distribution has also advised state and territorial governments to recognize partners in same-sex relationships as members of the same household for ration card purposes.
Federal marriage laws The following acts cover India's marriage laws: The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (ICMA): regulates the marriage and divorce of Indian Christians. An ordained minister of a church or a marriage registrar may conduct marriages under the Act. Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA): provides a special form of marriage for all Indian citizens regardless of religion. Marriages contracted under this Act are registered with the state as a civil contract. The Act applies to interfaith couples, partners of all religions or with no religious beliefs. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA): regulates marriage, separation and divorce for Hindus according to Hindu custom and rites. The Act also applies to Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: regulates marriage and divorce for Parsis under Zoroastrian rites. Anand Marriage Act, 1909: regulates marriage for Sikhs. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: regulates marriage, succession and inheritance for Muslims.
On 1 April 2022, MP Supriya Sule from the Nationalist Congress Party introduced a bill to the Lok Sabha to legalise same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The proposal would amend various sections of the Act to provide same-sex couples with the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. The bill would fix the marriageable age at 21 for gay couples and at 18 for lesbian couples. No action was taken on the bill.
Uniform Civil Code In 2017, a draft of a uniform civil code to legalise same-sex marriage was proposed by a group of citizens. Under the proposed code, marriage was defined as "the legal union as prescribed under this Act of a man with a woman, a man with another man, a woman with another woman, a transgender with another transgender or a transgender with a man or a woman". A partnership was similarly defined as the "living together of a man with a woman, a man with another man, a woman with another woman, a transgender with another transgender or a transgender with a man or a woman". It provided that any two persons who have been in a partnership for more than two years shall have the same rights and obligations as married couples, and mandated that all marriages be registered with the state. The draft stated that "all married couples and couples in a partnership are entitled to adopt a child. The sexual orientation of the married couple or the partners are not to be a bar to their right to adoption. Non-heterosexual couples will be equally entitled to adopt a child." Finally, the code provided for the repeal of all of India's marriage-related laws (the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, The Indian Christian Marriage Act, among others). The draft was submitted to the Law Commission of India for consideration.
Whether India should adopt the Uniform Civil Code is a matter of ongoing political debate. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supports a uniform civil code and was the first party in India to do so. The Law Commission began soliciting public views and requests on the issue on 19 March 2018, and later extended the deadline for opinions to 6 May 2018. Muslim groups oppose a uniform civil code because such a code would ban triple talaq, polygamy and would not be based on Sharia law, unlike current Muslim personal law, which governs Indian Muslims. The Law Commission of India stated on 31 August 2018 that a uniform civil code is "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" in a 185-page consultation paper. In February 2020, Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that "presently there is no proposal to legalise same-sex marriage", adding that the Union Government was not considering the issue. In September 2023, media reported that the Law Commission had excluded same-sex marriages from a draft uniform civil code.
State and territory laws
Further complicating matters, the states and union territories of India have their own laws with regard to the registration of marriages and marriages contracted under indigenous customs and rites. In February 2006, the Supreme Court of India ruled in Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar that the states and union territories are obliged to register all marriages performed under the federal laws. The court's ruling was expected to reduce instances of child marriages, bigamy, domestic violence and unlawful abandonment. However, a majority of Hindu marriages performed in India are not registered with the government despite registration being mandatory, and are instead conducted through unwritten common law. Several same-sex couples have held traditional Hindu marriage ceremonies throughout India since the late 1980s, but these marriages lack legal recognition. Family reactions range from support to disapproval to violent persecution.
In Supriyo v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the legislatures of the states and union territories may legalise same-sex marriage in the absence of federal legislation.
Andaman and Nicobar Islands In 1958, the Chief Commissioner published the Andaman And Nicobar Islands Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1958, commonly known as the Marriage Rules, requiring the registration of all Hindu marriages performed in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Rules do not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, but generally assume married spouses to be "husband and wife". The Marriage Officier has also been instructed to register all marriages in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Seema, including marriages performed under the SMA.
Andhra Pradesh