Evolving Jurisprudence on Same-Sex Marriages: A Comparative Study of India and Western Democracies

Abstract

Human rights, cultural traditions, and democratic norms have interacted to make same-sex marriages one of the most contentious and transformational problems in constitutional jurisprudence. Comparative analysis of same-sex marriage law in India and chosen Western democracies like the US, Canada, and the EU. Progressive judicial pronouncements and legislative reforms like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) in the US and the Civil Marriage Act (2005) in Canada have helped many Western jurisdictions recognize same-sex unions, but India still struggles with equality, dignity, and social morality. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court of India's landmark ruling that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, established LGBTQ+ rights in India but left marriage equality unresolved. how constitutional, socio-cultural, and judicial frameworks affect same-sex marriage recognition. The paper contrasts India's cautious judicial approach with Western courts' aggressive approach to show the conflicts between tradition and modernization, individual autonomy and society standards, and judicial interpretation and legislative accountability. The Indian judiciary has advanced LGBTQ+ rights, but marriage equality will likely require a delicate balance between constitutional morality, democratic desire, and cultural acceptability. how India might learn from global experiences while respecting its socio-legal environment to achieve inclusion.