Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 94 [Right to Choose a Partner]

Topic: Same-Sex Relationships, Right to Choose a Partner and Legal Recognition

Passage

The Indian Constitution protects individual liberty, equality, dignity and privacy. These constitutional guarantees extend to a person’s freedom to choose a romantic partner, regardless of sexual orientation. However, the freedom to form a relationship and the legal recognition of that relationship as marriage are distinct questions.

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex could not be criminalised merely because of their sexual orientation. The judgment recognised that sexual orientation forms an important part of personal identity and that constitutional morality must prevail over social prejudice. Consequently, consenting adults cannot be subjected to criminal punishment solely for engaging in same-sex intimacy.

The right to choose a partner also flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty. Adults may enter relationships according to their own preferences, even when their choices are opposed by family members or society. The State must protect individuals against unlawful threats, violence and coercion arising from such choices. However, constitutional protection does not extend to relationships involving force, absence of consent or conduct otherwise prohibited by valid law.

A separate question concerns whether same-sex relationships must receive the legal status of marriage. In Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023), a five-judge Constitution Bench considered whether same-sex couples could claim recognition of their marriages under existing Indian law. The Supreme Court declined to recognise a fundamental right to marry and refused to reinterpret the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to include same-sex marriages. The majority held that creating a legally recognised civil union resembling marriage would require legislative or executive action rather than judicial creation of a new legal framework.

Nevertheless, the Court recognised that queer individuals possess constitutional rights to choose partners, maintain relationships, cohabit and enjoy intimacy. These freedoms do not automatically create entitlement to legal benefits dependent on marital status, such as statutory spousal inheritance or other marriage-specific benefits. The majority also acknowledged disadvantages faced by queer couples and supported governmental examination of measures addressing them.

Importantly, the judgment distinguished same-sex marriages from marriages involving transgender persons in heterosexual relationships. Such marriages may be recognised under existing marriage laws where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied.

Thus, Indian constitutional law distinguishes three matters: the freedom to choose a consenting adult partner, protection of that relationship against unlawful interference, and formal legal recognition through marriage or an equivalent status. The first two enjoy constitutional protection, while the third depends on the applicable legal framework. Social disapproval alone cannot override constitutional liberty.

Multiple-Choice Questions

Question 1

Aarav and Kabir, both 25 years old, have been in a consensual same-sex relationship for four years. They decide to live together in a rented apartment. Aarav’s family strongly opposes the relationship and approaches the police, demanding that the couple be separated because their relationship is against traditional family values. The police are considering whether family objections justify intervention.

Which of the following most accurately reflects the governing constitutional principle?

(A) The police may separate the couple if their families establish that the relationship violates prevailing social customs.

(B) The couple’s constitutional freedom to choose a partner protects their consensual relationship against interference based solely on family or social disapproval.

(C) The couple can claim protection only after their relationship receives formal recognition under marriage law.

(D) The police must first determine whether the relationship has been accepted by the local community before deciding whether to intervene.

Question 2

Meera and Ananya, both adults, have lived together for eight years and consider themselves lifelong partners. After Ananya’s death, Meera applies for a statutory benefit expressly reserved for a legally recognised surviving spouse. The authorities reject her application because their relationship was never legally recognised as marriage. Meera argues that constitutional protection of their relationship automatically entitles her to every benefit available to married couples.

Based on the passage, which conclusion is most appropriate?

(A) Meera must receive the benefit because every constitutionally protected relationship automatically has the legal consequences of marriage.

(B) The authorities must recognise the relationship as marriage because eight years of cohabitation establishes marital status.

(C) Meera’s constitutional rights cease to exist because her relationship does not qualify as a legally recognised marriage.

(D) Constitutional protection of Meera’s relationship does not, by itself, establish entitlement to a statutory benefit restricted to legally recognised spouses.

Question 3

Rohan and Sameer, both adults, have been living together voluntarily. Sameer’s parents repeatedly threaten to harm Rohan unless the relationship ends. Sameer approaches the police seeking protection. Initially, the police refuse to assist, stating that same-sex couples do not enjoy legal protection without marriage recognition. Later, Sameer produces recorded threats and messages establishing a credible risk of violence.

How should the legal position be assessed after this additional evidence becomes available?

(A) The police should provide protection against unlawful threats because constitutional safeguards for consenting adults do not depend on marriage recognition.

(B) The police may refuse protection because only legally married couples possess an enforceable right to personal security.

(C) The police must first register the couple’s relationship as a civil union before considering protective measures.

(D) The police should intervene only if Sameer’s parents withdraw their objections to the relationship.

Question 4

Assume Parliament enacts a new law expressly recognising civil unions between two consenting adults, irrespective of their sex or sexual orientation. The legislation provides that registered civil partners shall receive specified inheritance, medical decision-making and social security benefits. It also requires both partners to be adults, freely consenting and formally registered under the new legislation.

Under this hypothetical change in law, which statement would be most accurate?

(A) The new legislation would have no legal effect because the Supreme Court previously refused to recognise same-sex marriages.

(B) Every same-sex relationship would automatically receive all the rights of marriage, even without satisfying the registration requirements.

(C) Eligible couples satisfying the statutory conditions could claim the benefits expressly granted by the new civil-union law.

(D) Only heterosexual couples could use the legislation because existing marriage laws generally regulate heterosexual marriages.

Question 5

Nisha is a transgender woman who identifies as female, and Arjun is a man. Both are adults and wish to marry under an applicable Indian marriage law. They satisfy the required conditions concerning age, consent and other statutory requirements. However, a marriage registration official refuses their application, stating that the Supreme Court’s judgment on same-sex marriage prevents all transgender persons from marrying.

Which statement best explains the legal position?

(A) The official is correct because transgender persons cannot marry until Parliament introduces separate marriage legislation.

(B) The refusal is inconsistent with the distinction recognised in the passage, because transgender persons in heterosexual relationships may marry under existing law when statutory conditions are fulfilled.

(C) The couple may live together but cannot obtain marriage recognition because constitutional protection is limited to cohabitation.

(D) The official is correct because any marriage involving a transgender person is legally equivalent to a same-sex marriage.

Question 6

Consider the following statements about constitutional protection and legal recognition of relationships in India:

I. The constitutional freedom to choose a consenting adult partner does not automatically establish a right to every statutory benefit available to married couples.

II. The State may interfere with an adult’s choice of partner solely because the majority of society considers that relationship morally unacceptable.

III. A relationship may receive constitutional protection against unlawful interference even when it lacks formal legal recognition as marriage.

IV. The Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriage necessarily prevents Parliament from introducing legislation recognising such relationships.

Which of the following options contains all and only the statements that can be correctly inferred from the passage?

(A) I and II only

(B) II and IV only

(C) I, III and IV only

(D) I and III only

Answer Key

Detailed Explanations

Question 1 — Correct Answer: (B)

Rule: Article 21 protects an adult’s freedom to choose a partner. Consensual same-sex relationships receive constitutional protection, and social or family disapproval alone cannot justify State interference.

Relevant Facts: Aarav and Kabir are consenting adults who have voluntarily entered a relationship and decided to live together. Their families oppose the arrangement because of traditional values, but there is no suggestion of coercion or unlawful conduct.

Application: Since both individuals are adults and their relationship is consensual, their decision falls within constitutionally protected personal autonomy. Family objections do not give the police lawful authority to separate them.

Option (A) incorrectly treats social customs as superior to constitutional liberty. Option (C) wrongly makes marriage recognition a prerequisite for protection. Option (D) incorrectly suggests that community approval determines constitutional rights.

Conclusion: Option (B) is correct because the constitutional freedom to choose a consenting adult partner cannot be overridden solely by family or social disapproval.

Question 2 — Correct Answer: (D)

Rule: Constitutional recognition of personal relationships does not automatically confer the legal status of marriage or statutory benefits expressly attached to that status. Under the principle discussed in Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India, relationship rights and marriage-based legal entitlements remain distinct.

Relevant Facts: Meera and Ananya maintained a long-term consensual relationship. However, the benefit Meera seeks is expressly restricted to legally recognised surviving spouses, and their relationship did not possess that legal status.

Application: The duration and emotional significance of their relationship establish neither a statutory marriage nor an automatic entitlement to every benefit available to married couples.

Option (A) wrongly equates constitutional protection with marriage benefits. Option (B) assumes that long-term cohabitation necessarily creates legal marital status. Option (C) is also incorrect because lack of marriage recognition does not extinguish constitutional rights.

Conclusion: Option (D) is correct. Constitutional protection of a relationship does not, by itself, satisfy a statutory requirement of recognised spousal status.

Question 3 — Correct Answer: (A)

Rule: The State has a constitutional responsibility to protect consenting adults against unlawful violence, threats and coercion arising from their choice of partner. This protection does not depend upon formal marriage recognition.

Relevant Facts: Rohan and Sameer are in a voluntary relationship. Sameer’s parents have threatened violence, and recorded communications now establish a credible risk to their safety.

Application: The recorded threats strengthen the factual basis for seeking police protection. Even before the additional evidence emerged, the absence of marriage recognition was not a lawful reason to deny protection. The new evidence makes the risk of unlawful harm more concrete.

Option (B) incorrectly restricts personal security to married couples. Option (C) invents a requirement of civil-union registration. Option (D) wrongly treats parental approval as a condition of State protection.

Conclusion: Option (A) is correct because the police should protect the couple against unlawful threats regardless of their marital status.

Question 4 — Correct Answer: (C)

Rule: The passage distinguishes constitutionally protected relationships from statutory recognition. Parliament may enact legislation granting formal legal status and specified benefits to eligible relationships. Where legislation imposes registration and eligibility requirements, those conditions govern entitlement.

Relevant Facts: The hypothetical legislation expressly recognises civil unions without distinction based on sex or sexual orientation. It grants particular benefits but requires adulthood, free consent and registration.

Application: Couples meeting these requirements would qualify for the rights specified in the new law. The Supreme Court’s earlier refusal to judicially create a civil-union framework does not prevent Parliament from legislating on the subject.

Option (A) misinterprets the Court’s ruling as a prohibition on future legislation. Option (B) overlooks statutory conditions and incorrectly assumes that all marriage rights arise automatically. Option (D) contradicts the express gender-neutral scope of the hypothetical law.

Conclusion: Option (C) is correct because eligible registered couples could claim the legal benefits provided under the new legislation.

Question 5 — Correct Answer: (B)

Rule: The Supreme Court distinguished same-sex marriages from marriages involving transgender persons in heterosexual relationships. Such marriages may receive recognition under existing Indian marriage laws, provided applicable statutory requirements are satisfied.

Relevant Facts: Nisha is a transgender woman, while Arjun is a man. Their relationship is heterosexual, and the question expressly states that they satisfy the relevant marriage-law requirements.

Application: The official incorrectly assumes that the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriages creates a general prohibition against marriage involving transgender persons. The passage expressly recognises the legal distinction between these situations.

Option (A) incorrectly suggests that separate legislation is always necessary. Option (C) overlooks the possibility of marriage recognition under existing law. Option (D) wrongly treats every marriage involving a transgender person as a same-sex marriage.

Conclusion: Option (B) is correct because Nisha and Arjun’s marriage cannot be rejected merely on the ground that Nisha is transgender when the relevant statutory conditions are satisfied.

Question 6 — Correct Answer: (D)

Rule: The passage establishes that consenting adults enjoy constitutional protection for their choice of partner and relationships. However, these rights do not automatically confer legal marriage status or marriage-specific statutory benefits. The legislature may create legal frameworks recognising additional relationships.

Relevant Facts: The four statements address the relationship between constitutional liberty, social morality, statutory recognition and legislative authority.

Application:

• Statement I is correct. Constitutional protection of a relationship does not automatically confer all statutory benefits reserved for recognised spouses.
• Statement II is incorrect. Social disapproval alone cannot justify interference with an adult’s constitutionally protected choice of partner.
• Statement III is correct. A relationship may enjoy protection against unlawful interference despite lacking formal marriage recognition.
• Statement IV is incorrect. The Supreme Court’s refusal to create marriage recognition through judicial interpretation does not prohibit Parliament from introducing a recognition framework through legislation.

Option (A) includes the incorrect Statement II. Option (B) contains two incorrect statements. Option (C) incorrectly includes Statement IV.

Conclusion: Option (D) is correct because Statements I and III accurately reflect the distinction between constitutional relationship rights and formal legal recognition.