India’s Same-Sex Couple Tax Case: How a Gold Bracelet Became a Fight for Equality

India’s same-sex couple tax case has turned a simple anniversary gift into a constitutional battle over LGBTQ+ equality.

Two men from Bengaluru are challenging a law that gives married couples tax exemptions on certain gifts but denies the same protection to partners who cannot legally marry.

At the centre of the dispute is a gold bracelet, a family heirloom given as a symbol of love. But what should have been a private celebration has become a legal challenge to the Indian government’s treatment of same-sex relationships.

And the government’s response? Extending the tax benefit, it argues, could amount to indirectly recognising same-sex marriage.

Apparently, even a romantic gift can become a political controversy when you’re gay.

India’s Same-Sex Couple Tax Case: The Love Story Behind the Bracelet

Anurag Kalia and Akhilesh Godi are two software engineers living in Bengaluru who have been in a committed relationship for several years.

To celebrate their anniversary, Akhilesh gave Anurag a 22-carat gold bracelet weighing 14.41 grams. The jewellery, originally a family heirloom passed down from Akhilesh’s father, was valued at approximately ₹115,500.

It was a meaningful gesture, the kind of present that carries memories, affection and a sense of belonging.

However, when the couple began preparing their income tax returns, they discovered that the bracelet could be treated as taxable income because their relationship was not legally recognised as a marriage.

Under India’s Income Tax Act, certain gifts worth more than ₹50,000 can be subject to taxation unless they qualify for an exemption. Gifts received from specified relatives, including legally recognised spouses, are generally exempt.

That means a married heterosexual couple exchanging the same gift would normally benefit from an exemption unavailable to Anurag and Akhilesh.

Rather than accepting the difference, the couple decided to challenge it.

Why Is India Denying Same-Sex Couples Equal Tax Benefits?

The legal dispute centres on Section 56(2)(x) of India’s Income Tax Act, 1961, which governs the tax treatment of certain gifts.

Anurag and Akhilesh argue that excluding same-sex partners from the exemption available to spouses amounts to unconstitutional discrimination.

Their legal team maintains that the issue is not whether India should immediately introduce marriage equality, but whether the government can deny an existing financial benefit solely because a couple cannot legally marry.

The Indian government disagrees.

During proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath defended the existing interpretation of the law.

The government’s position is that spousal tax exemptions depend on legally recognised marital relationships. Since Indian law does not currently recognise same-sex marriage, extending those exemptions to same-sex partners could, according to the government, amount to recognising such marriages indirectly.

Officials have also argued that broadening the definition could create difficulties for tax authorities in verifying relationships and preventing misuse of exemptions.

For the petitioners, however, this reasoning exposes the very inequality they are challenging: their relationship cannot qualify for certain protections because the law does not allow them to marry in the first place.

Could the Karnataka High Court Deliver a Landmark LGBTQ+ Rights Ruling?

The case is being heard by Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad at the Karnataka High Court.

Representing the couple, advocate Dr Dhruv Janssen-Sanghavi has argued that their exclusion should be examined under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution, which protect equality before the law and prohibit specified forms of discrimination.

The petitioners contend that the tax rules create an unequal financial consequence for same-sex relationships, even when the circumstances are otherwise comparable to those of a married heterosexual couple.

Their challenge also draws on the principle that discrimination can arise indirectly when apparently neutral rules disproportionately disadvantage particular groups.

The case comes three years after India’s Supreme Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage in its landmark October 2023 judgment.

That decision left queer couples without access to the legal institution of marriage, although the Court recognised important constitutional protections concerning their relationships and personal autonomy.

The current challenge asks a narrower question: can same-sex couples receive equal treatment under a particular tax provision without the courts first recognising their relationships as marriages?

According to recent reports, the matter is expected to return to court on 2 November for technical clarification of certain documents.

No final judgment has yet been delivered.

Why a Gold Bracelet Could Matter to LGBTQ+ Couples Across India

Although the dispute concerns one piece of jewellery, its implications could extend beyond the two men involved.

Legal recognition affects more than wedding ceremonies. It can shape taxation, inheritance, financial planning, healthcare decisions and the treatment of partners during some of life’s most difficult moments.

For LGBTQ+ couples in India, the absence of marriage recognition means that relationships built over many years may still lack protections routinely available to legally married heterosexual couples.

The Karnataka case highlights one of the practical consequences of that inequality.

If the Court rules in favour of Anurag and Akhilesh, its decision could establish an important precedent concerning access to a specific financial benefit. It would not automatically legalise same-sex marriage or resolve every form of discrimination affecting queer couples.

Nevertheless, it could challenge the idea that denying marriage recognition must necessarily mean denying all associated legal protections.

That distinction matters enormously for couples whose commitment is no less genuine simply because the law does not acknowledge it in the same way.

When Love Becomes Taxable, Equality Has a Problem

There is something particularly revealing about this case.

Akhilesh did not give Anurag a bracelet as part of a political campaign. According to the couple’s account, he gave it to celebrate their relationship and share something meaningful from his family.

Yet that gesture has exposed a legal distinction between relationships the state recognises and those it does not.

The government maintains that the difference arises from legally defined marital status, rather than discrimination against individuals because of their sexuality. The couple argues that this distinction cannot be separated from their exclusion from marriage.

Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court will have to decide whether the current tax treatment can withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Whatever the outcome, the case raises a question that reaches far beyond India’s tax system: should people face different financial consequences for expressing affection simply because their relationship is not recognised by law?

Love should not become less valuable in the eyes of the law because two people happen to be of the same sex. And a family heirloom should not have to become a courtroom battle to prove it.

Sometimes, the fight for equality begins with a protest. Sometimes, it begins with a court ruling.

And sometimes, it begins with a gold bracelet given to someone you love.