Decriminalization Of Homosexuality Under Ipc
Background
Homosexuality in India was criminalized under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 377 IPC (1861) criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” punishable with imprisonment.
The section was originally introduced during British colonial rule and remained unchanged for over a century.
Over time, the section was challenged for violating constitutional rights including privacy, equality, and dignity.
Legal Issues with Section 377 IPC
Whether consensual same-sex relations between adults fall under the purview of Section 377.
Whether Section 377 violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 19 (Freedom of Expression), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
Balancing moral/social norms with individual rights and freedoms.
Timeline of Judicial Developments
Landmark Case Laws on Decriminalization of Homosexuality
1. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277
Facts: The Naz Foundation, an NGO, challenged Section 377 in Delhi High Court.
Issue: Whether Section 377 criminalizes consensual adult homosexual acts and violates fundamental rights.
Ruling: Delhi High Court ruled Section 377 unconstitutional in so far as it criminalized consensual sex between adults.
Principle: Recognized rights to privacy, dignity, and equality of LGBTQ+ persons.
Significance: First judicial step towards decriminalization; struck down part of Section 377.
2. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) 1 SCC 1
Facts: Review petition against the Delhi High Court’s judgment.
Issue: Whether Naz Foundation ruling should be upheld or Section 377 restored.
Ruling: Supreme Court overturned Delhi High Court, reinstating criminalization.
Reasoning: Held that Section 377 affects only a “minuscule minority” and does not violate constitutional rights.
Significance: Setback for LGBTQ+ rights; court deferred to legislature for change.
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Right to Privacy Case)
Facts: Privacy petition which indirectly affected LGBTQ+ rights.
Issue: Whether the right to privacy includes sexual orientation.
Ruling: Supreme Court held that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and includes protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Principle: Laid foundation for subsequent decriminalization by affirming dignity and privacy of LGBTQ+ persons.
Significance: Landmark recognition of sexual orientation as part of privacy rights.
4. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1
Facts: Petition challenging constitutionality of Section 377.
Issue: Whether criminalizing consensual homosexual acts violates fundamental rights.
Ruling: Supreme Court unanimously decriminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults.
Principle:
Affirmed rights to equality (Art. 14), freedom (Art. 19), and dignity (Art. 21).
Overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal.
Significance: Historic judgment affirming LGBTQ+ rights and ending criminalization.
5. Hirak Ranjan Ghosh v. Union of India (2019) Writ Petition
Facts: Petition for recognition of transgender rights post-Navtej Singh judgment.
Issue: Whether Section 377 applies to transgender persons and their rights.
Ruling: Courts reaffirmed that Navtej Singh judgment protects all sexual minorities including transgender individuals.
Significance: Extended protection of dignity and privacy beyond gay men to all gender and sexual minorities.
6. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600 (Related Principle)
Facts: Although not about Section 377, case highlighted right to live with dignity.
Issue: Freedom from moral policing and social prejudice.
Ruling: Supreme Court condemned moral policing and stressed individual rights.
Significance: Supported later judgments protecting LGBTQ+ community from discrimination.
Summary Table: Judicial Approach to Section 377
| Case | Year | Outcome | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naz Foundation v. Delhi Govt | 2009 | Partly struck down Section 377 | Privacy, dignity of LGBTQ+ persons recognized |
| Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation | 2013 | Overturned Naz Foundation; reinstated Section 377 | Deferred to legislature; minority does not warrant rights |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 2017 | Right to privacy includes sexual orientation | Privacy fundamental; basis for LGBTQ+ rights |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts | Affirmed equality, freedom, dignity of LGBTQ+ persons |
| Hirak Ranjan Ghosh v. Union of India | 2019 | Extended protection to transgender persons | Inclusive interpretation of Navtej Singh judgment |
Conclusion
Section 377 IPC was historically used to criminalize consensual same-sex relations.
The judicial journey shows evolving recognition of LGBTQ+ rights based on constitutional guarantees.
The Supreme Court’s Navtej Singh Johar (2018) ruling marks the final and historic step in decriminalizing homosexuality.
This reflects the Indian judiciary’s progressive role in upholding human dignity, privacy, and equality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments