BharatNotes Why this chapter matters for UPSC: The Constitution is the backbone of GS2 (Indian Polity). Every Prelims paper has multiple direct questions on Constituent Assembly facts, Preamble words, fundamental rights, DPSPs, and landmark amendments. Mains requires deep analysis — Basic Structure doctrine, constitutional morality, the tension between rights and DPSPs, and landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati. No GS2 topic can be answered well without a firm constitutional foundation.
PART 1 — Quick Reference Tables
| Key Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Constituent Assembly first meeting | December 9, 1946 |
| President of Constituent Assembly | Dr Rajendra Prasad |
| Chairman, Drafting Committee | Dr B.R. Ambedkar ("Father of the Constitution") |
| Objectives Resolution moved by | Jawaharlal Nehru (Dec 13, 1946; adopted Jan 22, 1947) |
| Women members of CA | 15 (including Sarojini Naidu, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Amrit Kaur, Durgabai Deshmukh, Hansa Mehta) |
| Total members at final adoption | 284 signed; 299 members at time of adoption |
| Constitution adopted | November 26, 1949 (Constitution Day) |
| Constitution in force | January 26, 1950 (Republic Day) |
| Calligrapher of original Constitution | Prem Behari Narain Raizada |
| Artist — illustrations | Nandalal Bose (scenes from Indian history/culture) |
| Preamble Keywords | Meaning / Relevance |
|---|---|
| Sovereign | India is independent; not subject to external authority |
| Socialist | Added by 42nd Amendment 1976; commitment to reduce inequality |
| Secular | Added by 42nd Amendment 1976; no state religion; equal respect for all faiths |
| Democratic | Government by the people, through elected representatives |
| Republic | Elected head of state (President); not a monarchy |
| Justice (social, economic, political) | Comprehensive justice covering all life domains |
| Liberty (thought, expression, belief, faith, worship) | Broad individual freedoms |
| Equality (status and opportunity) | No discrimination; equal chance to develop |
| Fraternity | Brotherhood; dignity of individual; unity of the nation |
| Key Constitutional Articles | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 1 | India is a "Union of States" (not "Federation") |
| Articles 12–35 | Fundamental Rights (Part III) |
| Articles 36–51 | Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) |
| Article 74 | Council of Ministers to aid and advise President |
| Article 324 | Election Commission of India |
| Article 352 | National Emergency |
| Article 356 | President's Rule in States |
| Article 360 | Financial Emergency |
| Article 368 | Procedure for Amendment |
PART 2 — Detailed Notes
What Is a Constitution?
Constitution: The fundamental law of a country — a supreme document (or set of conventions) that: (1) establishes the structure of government; (2) defines the relationship between the state and its citizens; (3) protects individual rights; and (4) limits the powers of government.
Constitutions may be written (India, USA — a single codified document) or unwritten/conventional (UK — no single document; based on statutes, conventions, and precedents). India's Constitution is the longest written constitution of any sovereign nation in the world.
The Constituent Assembly
India's Constitution was not granted by colonial rulers — it was drafted by Indians, for Indians. The Constituent Assembly was composed of members elected by the Provincial Legislative Assemblies in 1946 under the Cabinet Mission Plan. It was not directly elected by the people but reflected the leadership chosen by those who had won provincial elections.
Key members and roles:
- Dr B.R. Ambedkar — Chairman of the Drafting Committee; supervised the actual drafting of constitutional text; his encyclopaedic knowledge of constitutional law worldwide shaped every clause. Called the "Father of the Constitution." He also fought simultaneously for the rights of Dalits and marginalised communities.
- Jawaharlal Nehru — Moved the Objectives Resolution (November 13, 1946; adopted January 22, 1947), which laid out the founding vision: sovereignty, justice, liberty, equality, fraternity. This resolution became the basis for the Preamble.
- Dr Rajendra Prasad — President of the Constituent Assembly; later became India's first President.
- Other Drafting Committee members: K.M. Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, B.L. Mitter, D.P. Khaitan, T.T. Krishnamachari.
Women in the Constituent Assembly: Fifteen women participated, including Sarojini Naidu, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Amrit Kaur (later Health Minister), Durgabai Deshmukh, and Hansa Mehta — who famously advocated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights use "all human beings" rather than "all men."
UPSC GS2 — Constituent Assembly debates as policy history:
The CA debates (recorded in 12 volumes) are primary sources for understanding why constitutional provisions were drafted as they were. Key debates include: the choice of parliamentary over presidential system; the decision to have a single citizenship; the inclusion of DPSPs (inspired by Irish Constitution); the language issue; and the decision on federalism. The Supreme Court regularly consults CA debates when interpreting ambiguous constitutional provisions.
The Preamble
The Preamble is the Constitution's opening statement — a declaration of purpose and values. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) ruled that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be used to interpret its provisions.
The 42nd Amendment, 1976 (during the Emergency under Indira Gandhi) added the words "Socialist" and "Secular" to the Preamble. This is the most-tested Prelims fact about the Preamble. The original 1949 Preamble did not contain these words.
"FRATERNITY... assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation" — the word "integrity" was also added by the 42nd Amendment.
Key Features of the Constitution
Federal with Unitary Bias: India's Constitution establishes a federal structure (Centre + States, with separate legislatures and executive) but with strong centralising features: Article 1 uses "Union of States" (not "federation"); the Centre can legislate on State List subjects during emergencies (Articles 352, 356); Governors are appointed by the Centre; residuary powers vest in the Centre (Article 248); the Centre can override state laws in certain circumstances.
This "federal with unitary bias" character is a standard UPSC Mains answer framework for questions on Centre-State relations.
Fundamental Rights (Part III, Articles 12–35): Six categories of fundamental rights (the original seven — right to property — was removed as a Fundamental Right by the 44th Amendment, 1978; it remains a constitutional/legal right under Article 300A):
- Right to Equality (Articles 14–18)
- Right to Freedom (Article 19–22)
- Right against Exploitation (Articles 23–24)
- Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28)
- Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30)
- Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32 — Dr Ambedkar called this the "heart and soul" of the Constitution)
Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV, Articles 36–51): Non-justiciable guidelines for the state to aim for — inspired by the Irish Constitution and Gandhian principles. DPSPs cover: equal pay for equal work (Article 39(d)), free legal aid (Article 39A added by 42nd Amendment), uniform civil code (Article 44), cottage industries (Article 43), Panchayati Raj (Article 40). The tension between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs was resolved by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills (1980) — both must be given effect; neither is absolutely superior to the other.
Adoption, Artistic Legacy, and Constitutional Day
The Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949. This date was declared Constitution Day (Samvidhan Divas) in 2015 on the initiative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, marking the 125th birth anniversary of Dr B.R. Ambedkar.
The Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950 — chosen deliberately: on January 26, 1930, the Indian National Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru had declared Purna Swaraj (complete independence) and called on Indians to celebrate it as Independence Day. Making it Republic Day gave the date a double significance.
The original Constitution is handwritten — calligraphed by Prem Behari Narain Raizada in a flowing italic style, with each page framed in gold and decorated with scenes from Indian history by artist Nandalal Bose and his students from Shantiniketan.
UPSC GS2 — Basic Structure Doctrine:
The most important constitutional law concept for UPSC Mains: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court (largest constitutional bench in Indian history) ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution. What constitutes Basic Structure is not an exhaustive list, but elements include: supremacy of the Constitution; republican and democratic form of government; secular character; separation of powers; judicial review; federalism; fundamental rights.
This doctrine limits parliamentary sovereignty — Parliament, even with a two-thirds majority, cannot amend away the essence of the Constitution.
42nd Amendment (1976) — enacted during Emergency; called "Mini-Constitution" for its sweeping changes: added "Socialist" and "Secular" to Preamble; curtailed judicial review; placed DPSPs above Fundamental Rights; extended Parliament's term.
44th Amendment (1978) — reversed many 42nd Amendment changes; restored judicial review; removed Right to Property from Fundamental Rights.
Constitutional Morality vs Social Morality: In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults (reading down Section 377 of IPC). Justice D.Y. Chandrachud articulated the distinction between "constitutional morality" (the values embedded in the Constitution — equality, dignity, non-discrimination) and "social morality" (prevailing public opinion, which may be majoritarian and discriminatory). Constitutional morality must prevail over social morality in a constitutional democracy. This is a key concept for GS2 Mains.
[Additional] 3a. One Nation One Election — Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024
The chapter covers constitutional amendments but omits the most significant pending constitutional amendment as of 2025: the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 — introducing "One Nation One Election" (ONOE) by synchronising Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Introduced in Lok Sabha on December 17, 2024, the bill proposes inserting new Article 82A and amending Articles 83, 172, and 327. Referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), it is the most constitutionally contested reform proposal since the 42nd Amendment era.
Key Terms — One Nation One Election:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| One Nation One Election (ONOE) | Proposal to hold elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously — as was the case from 1951 to 1967 (before mid-term dissolutions broke synchrony) |
| Article 82A (proposed new) | The core new provision — defines "appointed date" (first sitting of Lok Sabha after a general election) and mandates that all State Assembly terms align to end simultaneously with Lok Sabha; if any assembly is dissolved mid-term, fresh elections are only for the "unexpired term" |
| Unexpired term | Key ONOE concept: if a State Assembly is dissolved early (e.g., due to coalition collapse), the next State election is held only for the remaining months of the original 5-year cycle — NOT for a fresh 5-year term; aligning it back to the common cycle |
| JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) | Parliamentary committee with members from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha; referred both ONOE bills for review; chaired by PP Chaudhary (BJP MP); 39 members; due to report by Monsoon Session 2026 |
| Kovind Committee | High Level Committee on ONOE constituted September 2, 2023; chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind; submitted 18,626-page report to President Droupadi Murmu on March 14, 2024 |
[Additional] One Nation One Election — Bill, Committee, and Controversy (GS2 — Constitution / Polity / Federalism):
Ram Nath Kovind High Level Committee (HLC):
- Constituted: September 2, 2023
- Chairman: Ram Nath Kovind (former President of India)
- Report submitted: March 14, 2024 to President Droupadi Murmu
- Report size: 18,626 pages (191 days of work); consulted 47 political parties (32 in favour); 21,558 citizen responses (80% in favour)
- Key recommendations:
- Phase 1: Simultaneous Lok Sabha + State Assembly elections
- Phase 2: Municipal and Panchayat elections within 100 days of Phase 1
- If any State Assembly dissolved mid-term: fresh elections only for the "unexpired term"
- Estimated ~15 constitutional amendments needed to implement ONOE
The Bills (December 2024):
| Bill | Number | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 | Bill No. 275/2024 | Inserts Article 82A; amends Articles 83 (Parliament terms), 172 (State Assembly terms), 327 (Parliament's election powers) |
| Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 | Companion bill | Amends UTs laws (NCT Delhi Act, J&K Reorganisation Act, Govt of UTs Act) to align assembly elections |
- Introduced: Lok Sabha, December 17, 2024, by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal
- Division vote on introduction: 269 in favour, 198 opposed
- Status: Referred to JPC (December 19, 2024); JPC tenure extended to Monsoon Session 2026; NOT yet passed
Constitutional concerns — the federalism debate:
| Concern | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Federalism (Basic Structure) | S.R. Bommai (1994) declared federalism part of Basic Structure; ONOE can curtail state assembly terms without state consent — contradicts the principle of independent state mandates |
| Article 3 vs ONOE | Under Article 3, Parliament can alter state boundaries; but ONOE goes further — it structurally limits when a state can hold elections, reducing state democratic autonomy |
| "Unexpired term" concept | If a state government falls after 2 years, the state voters wait for 2-3 years for fresh elections; critics argue this denies states effective democratic recourse |
| Presidential system risk | Critics argue ONOE will "presidentialise" Indian elections — national issues and the PM's face will dominate, marginalising state-level issues and regional parties |
| Article 356 misuse risk | To maintain ONOE synchronisation, Centre may resort to extended President's Rule rather than holding by-elections out of schedule |
Historical precedent: Simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962, and 1967. The cycle broke first in 1969 when the 4th Lok Sabha was dissolved early; multiple state assembly dissolutions further decoupled the cycles. ONOE is essentially a restoration of the 1951-1967 model.
UPSC synthesis: ONOE = GS2 Constitution + Polity + Federalism. Key exam facts: Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill = Bill No. 275/2024; introduced Lok Sabha December 17 2024 by Arjun Ram Meghwal; proposes Article 82A (new); amends Articles 83, 172, 327; referred to JPC December 19 2024 (chair PP Chaudhary); NOT yet passed; Kovind HLC = constituted September 2 2023, report submitted March 14 2024 (18,626 pages); ONOE ran 1951-1967 (broke with 4th LS dissolution 1969); core criticism = federalism (S.R. Bommai 1994 = federalism in Basic Structure); "unexpired term" concept = mid-term election only for balance period. Prelims trap: 129th Amendment Bill is still pending (not enacted); Kovind Committee report March 2024 is a recommendation, NOT a law.
[Additional] 3b. Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) — SC Denies Same-Sex Marriage, Defers to Parliament
The chapter discusses constitutional morality (citing Navtej Singh Johar 2018 which decriminalised consensual same-sex relations) but omits the logical sequel: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (October 17, 2023) — where a 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marriage (for anyone), and a 3:2 majority declined to read the Special Marriage Act 1954 to include same-sex couples, leaving any legislative recognition entirely to Parliament. This is the clearest case of the court drawing the line between constitutional morality and legislative domain.
Key Terms — Supriyo v. Union of India:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) | A secular law allowing marriage between persons of different religions/castes; the primary legislation petitioners sought to have read as gender-neutral to enable same-sex marriage |
| Fundamental right to marry | The SC held unanimously in Supriyo (2023) that there is NO fundamental right to marry — marriage is a statutory right, created by law (SMA, HMA, etc.), not a natural constitutional right |
| Civil union | A legally recognised partnership between two people with specific rights and obligations — distinct from marriage; the minority (Chandrachud, Kaul) in Supriyo argued queer couples should have the right to a civil union even if not marriage |
| Separation of powers | The majority's core holding: expanding the definition of marriage in existing statutes to include same-sex couples is a legislative function — courts cannot do it through interpretation without crossing into Parliament's domain |
| 3:2 split | The bench split on civil unions: CJI Chandrachud + Justice Kaul (minority) wanted to recognise civil union rights; Justices Bhat, Kohli, Narasimha (majority) declined — Parliament must act |
[Additional] Supriyo v. Union of India 2023 — Constitutional Morality and Same-Sex Marriage (GS2 — Constitution / Fundamental Rights):
Case details:
- Full name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India
- Citation: 2023 INSC 920; AIR 2023 SC 5283; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
- Judgment date: October 17, 2023
- Bench (5-judge Constitution Bench):
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (presiding)
- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
- Justice Hima Kohli
- Justice P.S. Narasimha
What was sought: Petitioners asked the Court to:
- Read the Special Marriage Act 1954 in gender-neutral terms (so queer couples could marry under existing law), OR
- Declare a fundamental right to marry that extends to same-sex couples
The ruling — what all 5 judges agreed:
- There is no fundamental right to marry — for anyone; marriage is a statutory creation, not a constitutional right
- Queer persons have the right to live with dignity, privacy, and without harassment (Article 21)
- All persons have the right to cohabit with a life partner — but this "abiding union" carries no legal status
The split (3:2):
| Majority (Bhat, Kohli, Narasimha) | Minority (Chandrachud, Kaul) |
|---|---|
| Declined to read SMA as gender-neutral — Parliament must amend | Would have recognised a right to civil unions under Article 15 (non-discrimination) |
| SMA's purpose was inter-religious/caste marriages; judicial expansion = legislative overreach | Denying civil union recognition based on sexual orientation violates Article 15 |
| Left all recognition of same-sex relationships to Parliament and state legislatures | Would have directed government to set up a framework for civil unions |
Constitutional morality angle:
- Petitioners argued: constitutional morality (pluralism, dignity, equality embedded in Constitution) demands recognition of same-sex unions — just as Navtej Singh Johar (2018) overrode social morality to decriminalise Section 377
- CJI Chandrachud (minority): Courts must uphold constitutional morality even against social resistance; denying civil union rights to queer couples violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21
- Majority: Constitutional morality does not grant courts the power to rewrite legislation; the question of recognising a new category of legal relationship is for Parliament
Navtej–Supriyo: the two-step:
| Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI (2018) | Supriyo v. UoI (2023) |
|---|---|
| Section 377 IPC struck down (consensual adult same-sex acts decriminalised) | Same-sex marriage not recognised; deferred to Parliament |
| Unanimous 5-judge bench | 3:2 split on civil unions; unanimous on no FR to marry |
| Dismantled a criminal prohibition | Declined to create a positive legal framework |
| "History owes an apology to the LGBTQ+ community" (Chandrachud) | Courts cannot rewrite the marriage statute; Parliament must act |
Post-judgment (as of 2026): No legislative action by Parliament on same-sex marriage or civil unions. The SC majority directed the Centre to constitute a Committee to examine rights and entitlements of queer couples (insurance, pension, hospital visitation, joint bank accounts); as of May 2026, no formal legislation has followed.
UPSC synthesis: Supriyo v. UoI = GS2 Fundamental Rights + Constitutional Morality. Key exam facts: Judgment October 17 2023; 5-judge bench (CJI Chandrachud, Kaul, Bhat, Kohli, Narasimha); citation 2023 INSC 920; unanimous = NO fundamental right to marry; 3:2 on civil unions (Chandrachud + Kaul dissented in favour; Bhat + Kohli + Narasimha = majority against); SMA 1954 = primary statute; reason for majority = separation of powers, legislative domain; constitutional morality invoked by minority; Navtej Singh Johar 2018 = decriminalised Section 377; Supriyo 2023 = declined marriage rights (deferred to Parliament); no legislation passed as of 2026. Prelims trap: Supriyo = 3:2 split (NOT unanimous on civil unions); Navtej = unanimous (NOT split).
[Additional] 3a. One Nation One Election — Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024
The chapter covers constitutional amendments but omits the most significant pending constitutional amendment as of 2025: the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 — introducing "One Nation One Election" (ONOE) by synchronising Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Introduced in Lok Sabha on December 17, 2024, the bill proposes inserting new Article 82A and amending Articles 83, 172, and 327. Referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), it is the most constitutionally contested reform proposal since the 42nd Amendment era.
Key Terms — One Nation One Election:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| One Nation One Election (ONOE) | Proposal to hold elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously — as was the case from 1951 to 1967 (before mid-term dissolutions broke synchrony) |
| Article 82A (proposed new) | The core new provision — defines "appointed date" (first sitting of Lok Sabha after a general election) and mandates that all State Assembly terms align to end simultaneously with Lok Sabha; if any assembly is dissolved mid-term, fresh elections are only for the "unexpired term" |
| Unexpired term | Key ONOE concept: if a State Assembly is dissolved early (e.g., due to coalition collapse), the next State election is held only for the remaining months of the original 5-year cycle — NOT for a fresh 5-year term; aligning it back to the common cycle |
| JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) | Parliamentary committee with members from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha; referred both ONOE bills for review; chaired by PP Chaudhary (BJP MP); 39 members; due to report by Monsoon Session 2026 |
| Kovind Committee | High Level Committee on ONOE constituted September 2, 2023; chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind; submitted 18,626-page report to President Droupadi Murmu on March 14, 2024 |
[Additional] One Nation One Election — Bill, Committee, and Controversy (GS2 — Constitution / Polity / Federalism):
Ram Nath Kovind High Level Committee (HLC):
- Constituted: September 2, 2023
- Chairman: Ram Nath Kovind (former President of India)
- Report submitted: March 14, 2024 to President Droupadi Murmu
- Report size: 18,626 pages (191 days of work); consulted 47 political parties (32 in favour); 21,558 citizen responses (80% in favour)
- Key recommendations:
- Phase 1: Simultaneous Lok Sabha + State Assembly elections
- Phase 2: Municipal and Panchayat elections within 100 days of Phase 1
- If any State Assembly dissolved mid-term: fresh elections only for the "unexpired term"
- Estimated ~15 constitutional amendments needed to implement ONOE
The Bills (December 2024):
| Bill | Number | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 | Bill No. 275/2024 | Inserts Article 82A; amends Articles 83 (Parliament terms), 172 (State Assembly terms), 327 (Parliament's election powers) |
| Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 | Companion bill | Amends UTs laws (NCT Delhi Act, J&K Reorganisation Act, Govt of UTs Act) to align assembly elections |
- Introduced: Lok Sabha, December 17, 2024, by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal
- Division vote on introduction: 269 in favour, 198 opposed
- Status: Referred to JPC (December 19, 2024); JPC tenure extended to Monsoon Session 2026; NOT yet passed
Constitutional concerns — the federalism debate:
| Concern | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Federalism (Basic Structure) | S.R. Bommai (1994) declared federalism part of Basic Structure; ONOE can curtail state assembly terms without state consent — contradicts the principle of independent state mandates |
| Article 3 vs ONOE | Under Article 3, Parliament can alter state boundaries; but ONOE goes further — it structurally limits when a state can hold elections, reducing state democratic autonomy |
| "Unexpired term" concept | If a state government falls after 2 years, the state voters wait for 2-3 years for fresh elections; critics argue this denies states effective democratic recourse |
| Presidential system risk | Critics argue ONOE will "presidentialise" Indian elections — national issues and the PM's face will dominate, marginalising state-level issues and regional parties |
| Article 356 misuse risk | To maintain ONOE synchronisation, Centre may resort to extended President's Rule rather than holding by-elections out of schedule |
Historical precedent: Simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962, and 1967. The cycle broke first in 1969 when the 4th Lok Sabha was dissolved early; multiple state assembly dissolutions further decoupled the cycles. ONOE is essentially a restoration of the 1951-1967 model.
UPSC synthesis: ONOE = GS2 Constitution + Polity + Federalism. Key exam facts: Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill = Bill No. 275/2024; introduced Lok Sabha December 17 2024 by Arjun Ram Meghwal; proposes Article 82A (new); amends Articles 83, 172, 327; referred to JPC December 19 2024 (chair PP Chaudhary); NOT yet passed; Kovind HLC = constituted September 2 2023, report submitted March 14 2024 (18,626 pages); ONOE ran 1951-1967 (broke with 4th LS dissolution 1969); core criticism = federalism (S.R. Bommai 1994 = federalism in Basic Structure); "unexpired term" concept = mid-term election only for balance period. Prelims trap: 129th Amendment Bill is still pending (not enacted); Kovind Committee report March 2024 is a recommendation, NOT a law.
[Additional] 3b. Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) — SC Denies Same-Sex Marriage, Defers to Parliament
The chapter discusses constitutional morality (citing Navtej Singh Johar 2018 which decriminalised consensual same-sex relations) but omits the logical sequel: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (October 17, 2023) — where a 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marriage (for anyone), and a 3:2 majority declined to read the Special Marriage Act 1954 to include same-sex couples, leaving any legislative recognition entirely to Parliament. This is the clearest case of the court drawing the line between constitutional morality and legislative domain.
Key Terms — Supriyo v. Union of India:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) | A secular law allowing marriage between persons of different religions/castes; the primary legislation petitioners sought to have read as gender-neutral to enable same-sex marriage |
| Fundamental right to marry | The SC held unanimously in Supriyo (2023) that there is NO fundamental right to marry — marriage is a statutory right, created by law (SMA, HMA, etc.), not a natural constitutional right |
| Civil union | A legally recognised partnership between two people with specific rights and obligations — distinct from marriage; the minority (Chandrachud, Kaul) in Supriyo argued queer couples should have the right to a civil union even if not marriage |
| Separation of powers | The majority's core holding: expanding the definition of marriage in existing statutes to include same-sex couples is a legislative function — courts cannot do it through interpretation without crossing into Parliament's domain |
| 3:2 split | The bench split on civil unions: CJI Chandrachud + Justice Kaul (minority) wanted to recognise civil union rights; Justices Bhat, Kohli, Narasimha (majority) declined — Parliament must act |
[Additional] Supriyo v. Union of India 2023 — Constitutional Morality and Same-Sex Marriage (GS2 — Constitution / Fundamental Rights):
Case details:
- Full name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India
- Citation: 2023 INSC 920; AIR 2023 SC 5283; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
- Judgment date: October 17, 2023
- Bench (5-judge Constitution Bench):
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (presiding)
- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
- Justice Hima Kohli
- Justice P.S. Narasimha
What was sought: Petitioners asked the Court to:
- Read the Special Marriage Act 1954 in gender-neutral terms (so queer couples could marry under existing law), OR
- Declare a fundamental right to marry that extends to same-sex couples
The ruling — what all 5 judges agreed:
- There is no fundamental right to marry — for anyone; marriage is a statutory creation, not a constitutional right
- Queer persons have the right to live with dignity, privacy, and without harassment (Article 21)
- All persons have the right to cohabit with a life partner — but this "abiding union" carries no legal status
The split (3:2):
| Majority (Bhat, Kohli, Narasimha) | Minority (Chandrachud, Kaul) |
|---|---|
| Declined to read SMA as gender-neutral — Parliament must amend | Would have recognised a right to civil unions under Article 15 (non-discrimination) |
| SMA's purpose was inter-religious/caste marriages; judicial expansion = legislative overreach | Denying civil union recognition based on sexual orientation violates Article 15 |
| Left all recognition of same-sex relationships to Parliament and state legislatures | Would have directed government to set up a framework for civil unions |
Constitutional morality angle:
- Petitioners argued: constitutional morality (pluralism, dignity, equality embedded in Constitution) demands recognition of same-sex unions — just as Navtej Singh Johar (2018) overrode social morality to decriminalise Section 377
- CJI Chandrachud (minority): Courts must uphold constitutional morality even against social resistance; denying civil union rights to queer couples violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21
- Majority: Constitutional morality does not grant courts the power to rewrite legislation; the question of recognising a new category of legal relationship is for Parliament
Navtej–Supriyo: the two-step:
| Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI (2018) | Supriyo v. UoI (2023) |
|---|---|
| Section 377 IPC struck down (consensual adult same-sex acts decriminalised) | Same-sex marriage not recognised; deferred to Parliament |
| Unanimous 5-judge bench | 3:2 split on civil unions; unanimous on no FR to marry |
| Dismantled a criminal prohibition | Declined to create a positive legal framework |
| "History owes an apology to the LGBTQ+ community" (Chandrachud) | Courts cannot rewrite the marriage statute; Parliament must act |
Post-judgment (as of 2026): No legislative action by Parliament on same-sex marriage or civil unions. The SC majority directed the Centre to constitute a Committee to examine rights and entitlements of queer couples (insurance, pension, hospital visitation, joint bank accounts); as of May 2026, no formal legislation has followed.
UPSC synthesis: Supriyo v. UoI = GS2 Fundamental Rights + Constitutional Morality. Key exam facts: Judgment October 17 2023; 5-judge bench (CJI Chandrachud, Kaul, Bhat, Kohli, Narasimha); citation 2023 INSC 920; unanimous = NO fundamental right to marry; 3:2 on civil unions (Chandrachud + Kaul dissented in favour; Bhat + Kohli + Narasimha = majority against); SMA 1954 = primary statute; reason for majority = separation of powers, legislative domain; constitutional morality invoked by minority; Navtej Singh Johar 2018 = decriminalised Section 377; Supriyo 2023 = declined marriage rights (deferred to Parliament); no legislation passed as of 2026. Prelims trap: Supriyo = 3:2 split (NOT unanimous on civil unions); Navtej = unanimous (NOT split).
Exam Strategy
Prelims traps:
- "Socialist" and "Secular" in Preamble = added by 42nd Amendment, 1976 (NOT original 1949)
- Constitution adopted = November 26, 1949; in force = January 26, 1950 — do not confuse
- President of CA = Dr Rajendra Prasad; Drafting Committee Chairman = Dr B.R. Ambedkar
- Article 32 = Right to Constitutional Remedies (Ambedkar: "heart and soul" of Constitution)
- Right to Property removed from Fundamental Rights by 44th Amendment, 1978 (now Article 300A)
- Kesavananda Bharati = 1973; 13-judge bench (largest in SC history); Basic Structure doctrine
Mains angles:
- Basic Structure Doctrine: why it matters; landmark cases (Kesavananda, Minerva Mills)
- Constituent Assembly: who shaped the Constitution and how debates reflect policy choices
- Preamble as guiding principle — how courts use it for interpretation
- Tension between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs — evolution of judicial approach
- Constitutional morality vs social morality (Navtej Singh Johar 2018)
Practice Questions
Prelims:
Consider the following with reference to the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Which of the following words were added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976?
(a) Sovereign and Democratic
(b) Socialist and Secular
(c) Democratic and Republic
(d) Liberty and FraternityWho chaired the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India?
(a) Jawaharlal Nehru
(b) Rajendra Prasad
(c) B.R. Ambedkar
(d) K.M. MunshiWhich Article of the Indian Constitution deals with the Right to Constitutional Remedies, which Dr Ambedkar called the "heart and soul" of the Constitution?
(a) Article 14
(b) Article 19
(c) Article 21
(d) Article 32
Mains:
- "The Basic Structure Doctrine is the judiciary's greatest contribution to Indian constitutionalism." Critically evaluate the doctrine with reference to its evolution and its significance for parliamentary democracy. (CSE Mains 2017, GS Paper 2, 15 marks)
- The Constituent Assembly debates are not merely historical documents — they are living guides to constitutional interpretation. Discuss with examples. (CSE Mains 2020, GS Paper 2, 15 marks)
