Centre Argues Same-Sex Spouse Tax Benefits Would Indirectly Recognize Marriage; Karnataka HC Hears Challenge
The Centre has argued before the Karnataka High Court that interpreting the term "spouse" in provisions of the income tax law of India to include same-sex partners would indirectly recognize same-sex matrimonial relationships, which remain unrecognized under Indian law. The submission came during hearings in a petition challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from tax benefits available to married couples.
On September 21, 2026, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made the argument before Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad in the case of Anurag Kalia v. Union of India (WP 28761 of 2025). "Same-sex marriage is not a recognised marriage in the Indian context. So, if we understand spouse to mean same sex people, we indirectly recognise their matrimonial relationship. Therefore, spouse necessarily means husband and wife," Mehta submitted to the court.
The case centers on whether same-sex couples can claim tax benefits that the income tax law of India currently extends only to married couples. These benefits include deductions, exemptions, and other provisions tied to marital status. The petitioner, Anurag Kalia, has challenged the government's refusal to recognize his same-sex partner as a "spouse" for tax purposes.
Statutory Interpretation at Issue
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question of statutory construction. The Income Tax Act uses the term "spouse" without defining it explicitly in relation to gender or the legal recognition of marriage. The petitioner's counsel has argued that a purposive reading of the statute, combined with constitutional principles of equality, should permit same-sex couples to access these tax benefits even without formal legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The Centre's position is that such an interpretation would constitute judicial recognition of a marital relationship that Parliament has not authorized. The government's argument treats the absence of same-sex marriage recognition in Indian law as a barrier to any statutory benefit that presupposes or implies such recognition.
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad has not yet ruled on the merits. The court's approach will likely turn on how it reconciles the plain language of tax statutes with constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The bench must also consider whether tax benefits granted based on a statutory definition of "spouse" necessarily amount to recognition of marriage itself, or whether they can be treated as distinct entitlements based on factual cohabitation and economic interdependence.
Constitutional Tensions
The case touches on longstanding constitutional tensions in India. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to privacy and dignity of same-sex couples, particularly in the 2018 judgment partially decriminalizing consensual same-sex conduct. However, it has not extended this to marriage recognition. Parliament has not amended the Hindu Marriage Act, the Indian Christian Marriage Act, or other marriage laws to permit same-sex unions.
The petitioner's challenge does not necessarily seek marriage recognition through the courts. Instead, it argues that tax law can treat same-sex couples as economic units deserving the same fiscal treatment as married couples, without requiring Parliament to amend marriage laws. This distinction—between tax treatment and marital status—may prove crucial to the court's reasoning.
The Centre's counter-argument suggests that any extension of spousal benefits would inevitably blur this line, effectively creating a parallel form of marital recognition through tax law that circumvents Parliament's legislative role.
Provisions Across Tax Law
Indian income tax law contains numerous provisions referencing spouse status. These include deductions for life insurance premiums, provisions relating to gifts to daughter-in-law income tax India rules, deductions under various heads of income, and filing status classifications. The law treats married couples differently from single individuals in computing taxable income and determining applicable rates.
A ruling that same-sex couples qualify as "spouses" for tax purposes would potentially open these provisions across the statute. Conversely, a ruling against the petitioner would confirm that tax law remains bound by marriage recognition requirements in other statutes.
Similar questions have arisen in other democracies. Some jurisdictions have extended tax benefits to same-sex couples through legislative amendment, while others have done so through judicial interpretation of existing statutes. India's approach will depend on whether the courts view tax law as autonomous from marriage law or as derivative of it.
The Petitioner's Argument
Anurag Kalia's petition argues that denying tax benefits based on sexual orientation violates constitutional equality guarantees. The petitioner contends that the purpose of spousal tax benefits—recognizing economic interdependence, preventing tax avoidance through income splitting, and supporting household units—applies equally to same-sex couples in long-term relationships.
The argument further suggests that the term "spouse," read in its ordinary meaning, can encompass same-sex partners without requiring courts to recognize same-sex marriage as a legal status. Instead, it proposes that courts treat "spouse" as a factual descriptor of a committed partner in a relationship, similar to how tax law recognizes de facto relationships in some contexts.
What Comes Next
The Karnataka High Court has not yet delivered judgment. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad's bench heard arguments from both the petitioner and the Centre on September 21, 2026. The court may reserve its order for detailed consideration or may call for additional submissions on specific points of law.
The case is being watched closely by LGBTQ+ rights organizations and tax law practitioners. A ruling in the petitioner's favor could extend significant economic benefits to same-sex couples, including joint filing options, spousal deductions, and succession benefits. A ruling against the petitioner would reinforce the principle that tax law depends on recognition granted through marriage statutes.
Until the court rules, same-sex couples continue to file tax returns as unmarried individuals. This affects their ability to claim various deductions and exemptions, potentially increasing their tax liability. The outcome may also influence how other government departments and statutory bodies interpret "spouse" in regulations governing employee benefits, pension entitlements, and social security schemes.
Either party may appeal to the Supreme Court, potentially bringing the question before India's highest court for authoritative resolution on the relationship between tax law, marriage law, and constitutional equality.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.