E-Paper
‘Cannot offer tax cuts to same-sex couples’: Centre tells Karnataka High Court
The government made the submissions before a bench of Justice B Shyama Prasad on Monday while opposing a plea filed by a same-sex couple.
Prefer HTon Google
The Union government has told the Karnataka High Court that same-sex couples in India cannot be granted tax exemptions available to spouses and family members under existing tax laws because doing so would recognise same-sex marital relationships.
The government made the submissions in a written statement before a bench of Justice B Shyama Prasad on Monday, while opposing a plea filed by a same-sex couple seeking the gift-tax exemption available to married couples.
Would ‘indirectly recognise same-sex marriage’
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, who appeared for the Centre, told the court that the petitioners cannot use the Income Tax (IT) Act to secure a benefit linked to a marital status that the Indian law does not recognise for same-sex couples.
The government said the tax law refers to legally recognised relationships and that any challenge to their exclusion must target the laws governing marriage, rather than the tax provision. It also said extending the exemption would “indirectly recognise same-sex marriages” and could “create scope for tax evasion.”
Also Read I Punjab social media influencer Mad Sandhu, who voiced LGBTQ and gender issues, shot dead in Amritsar
Mehta had earlier argued that interpreting “spouse” to include same-sex partners would effectively recognise their relationship as a marriage under Indian law. He said the exemption rests on the legal status of marriage, not the sex of individuals involved.
The government further said in its written submissions made before the court: “It is submitted that same-sex relationships are not equivalent to marriage and persons in same-sex relationships are not ‘spouses’ under the law. Hence, the benefit of the proviso would not be available to those in same-sex relationships.”
The government was opposing a petition filed by Anurag Kalia and Akhilesh Godi, both residents of Bengaluru, who challenged the Constitutional validity of the “fifth proviso” to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, saying it creates an indirect “discrimination” towards same sex couples.
The provision exempts gifts between “spouses” from tax but does not give the same benefits to non-heterosexual couples.
Penalised for ‘expressing love’
The petitioners, however, have argued that the IT Act effectively makes them pay tax for expressing their love for their partners, while married couples can exchange gifts without the same tax burden.
Their counsel, advocate Dhruv Jhanssen-Sanghvi, told the court that denying same-sex couples the tax exemption reflects unequal treatment of their relationships and penalises them for expressing love for their partners.
The court will now hear the matter on November 2 to seek “technical clarifications on documents filed in the case”.
The case arose after Godi gifted Kalia a 22-karat gold bracelet, a family heirloom. The two were preparing their income-tax returns for the 2025–26 assessment year when the tax issue arose. They then moved the HC in September 2025 seeking the court declare the fifth provision to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act “unconstitutional.” They also challenged the exclusion of same-sex partners from this benefit.
Advocate Sanghvi argued that the petition raises a narrower question than the one the SC considered in 2023, in the case of Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India, where it had declined among other things, to recognise same-sex marriages. The question in the present case, he said, is merely whether a tax benefit available to spouses can be denied to same-sex partners solely because they cannot legally marry. He also said marital status cannot automatically justify every distinction in the law. Even if marriage provides a reasonable basis for classification in certain contexts, the government must show why the distinction serves the purpose of the particular law, he said.
