Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. vs Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India
(2018) 10 SCC 1
Supreme Court of India
Decided on: September 6, 2018
Background / Facts:
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a colonial-era law, criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” which was interpreted to include consensual same-sex sexual acts.
The provision was used to criminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults, leading to discrimination, stigma, and harassment against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Several petitioners, including Navtej Singh Johar and other members and activists from the LGBTQ+ community, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377.
They argued that Section 377 violated their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, including:
Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination)
Article 19 (Freedom of expression and personal liberty)
Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty)
Legal Issues:
Whether Section 377 criminalizing consensual same-sex acts violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
Does Section 377 infringe the right to equality, dignity, and privacy of LGBTQ+ individuals?
Whether the Court should read down or strike down Section 377 to decriminalize consensual same-sex acts?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court unanimously declared that Section 377, to the extent it criminalizes consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional.
The Court held that Section 377 violates fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, dignity, autonomy, and equality.
The judgment emphasized:
Right to dignity and self-expression is part of Article 21.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation is analogous to discrimination based on sex or gender.
The LGBTQ+ community has the right to live with dignity, free from societal stigma and criminal sanctions.
The Court read down Section 377 to exclude consensual sexual acts between consenting adults in private.
It recognized the need to uphold the constitutional values of liberty, equality, and non-discrimination.
The Court noted the international trend and evolving human rights jurisprudence favoring LGBTQ+ rights.
Key Legal Principles:
1. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination (Articles 14 & 15):
The law cannot discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation.
The LGBTQ+ community is entitled to equal protection of the law.
2. Right to Privacy and Dignity (Article 21):
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to privacy as fundamental (building on the earlier Puttaswamy judgment).
Personal autonomy and consensual adult relationships fall within the ambit of privacy and dignity.
3. Fundamental Freedoms (Article 19):
Freedom of expression and association includes the right to express one’s sexual orientation.
4. Doctrine of Reading Down:
The Court used the doctrine of “reading down” to limit the scope of Section 377, ensuring it does not criminalize consensual acts between adults.
Related Case Laws:
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009)
Delhi High Court decriminalized Section 377 for consensual acts between adults; later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013)
Supreme Court reinstated the criminality of consensual same-sex acts, creating a setback.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, laying groundwork for LGBTQ+ rights.
Shah Bano Case (1985) and other constitutional equality cases
Helped frame the approach towards fundamental rights and non-discrimination.
Significance:
The judgment is a historic victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
It overturned colonial-era criminalization and affirmed constitutional protections for sexual minorities.
The ruling promotes social acceptance, dignity, and equality for marginalized communities.
It empowers LGBTQ+ individuals to live free from fear of prosecution or discrimination.
The case is a landmark in India’s human rights jurisprudence, inspiring movements for further reforms such as marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws.
Summary in Simple Terms:
Section 377 of IPC punished gay sex as a crime.
LGBTQ+ activists challenged this law, saying it violates their rights.
The Supreme Court said that consensual sex between adults, regardless of gender, cannot be a crime.
It protected LGBTQ+ people’s rights to privacy, equality, and dignity.
The Court made sure the law does not apply to consenting adults having private relationships.
This was a big step towards equality and freedom for LGBTQ+ people in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments