Lgbtq+ Rights Violations
1. Introduction
LGBTQ+ rights violations involve discrimination, harassment, denial of fundamental rights, or criminalization based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. Violations often occur in areas such as:
Criminalization of same-sex relations
Discrimination in employment, housing, or healthcare
Denial of marriage, adoption, or inheritance rights
Harassment and violence
Legal protection comes from constitutional provisions:
India: Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 19 (freedom of expression), 21 (right to life and personal liberty)
Global conventions: Human Rights frameworks, Yogyakarta Principles, etc.
2. Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases
Case 1: Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
The Naz Foundation challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC, which criminalized consensual same-sex relations.
Judgment:
The court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts among adults in private.
Held that Section 377 violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Recognized the right to equality, non-discrimination, and privacy for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Principle:
Criminalizing consensual same-sex relations constitutes fundamental rights violations.
Case 2: Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
This was an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s Naz Foundation judgment.
Judgment:
Supreme Court overturned the 2009 judgment, recriminalizing consensual homosexual acts.
Court argued that only a “minuscule fraction” of the population is LGBTQ+ and therefore Section 377 did not violate fundamental rights.
Principle:
This judgment was widely criticized as discriminatory and retrogressive, illustrating judicial limitations in protecting LGBTQ+ rights.
Case 3: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Though primarily a privacy case, it impacted LGBTQ+ rights.
Judgment:
Supreme Court recognized right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Implied that sexual orientation is an intimate aspect of privacy.
Principle:
Set the stage for the decriminalization of Section 377 by emphasizing personal liberty and dignity.
Case 4: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged Section 377 IPC again.
Judgment:
Supreme Court read down Section 377, decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts among adults.
Emphasized constitutional morality, dignity, and autonomy.
Held that LGBTQ+ individuals are equal citizens, deserving protection from discrimination and stigma.
Principle:
Marks a landmark victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India, affirming equality, privacy, and dignity.
Case 5: National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
NALSA petitioned for legal recognition of transgender persons’ rights.
Judgment:
Court recognized transgender persons as a third gender, entitled to fundamental rights, reservation, and protection from discrimination.
Held that gender identity is self-determined and must be legally recognized.
Principle:
Affirmed gender identity rights, broadening the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ communities beyond sexual orientation.
Case 6: S.S. v. Secretary for Justice (Hong Kong, 2019)
Facts:
Challenged the unequal treatment of same-sex couples in legal benefits.
Judgment:
Court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates constitutional equality provisions.
Affirmed that LGBTQ+ individuals have equal entitlement to civil rights.
Principle:
International precedent reinforcing non-discrimination and equality for LGBTQ+ people.
Case 7: Right to Marry & Adoption – Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Supreme Court of India, 2018)
Facts:
While indirectly related, the case emphasized individual autonomy in marriage choices.
Principle:
Courts recognized that marriage is based on personal choice, dignity, and consent, principles extending to LGBTQ+ marriage rights debates.
Although same-sex marriage is not yet legalized, constitutional protections support future claims.
Case 8: X v. Canada (International Human Rights Tribunal, 1990s)
Facts:
Discrimination in workplace and government benefits against a same-sex couple.
Judgment:
Tribunal recognized sexual orientation as a protected characteristic, and ruled in favor of equal rights.
Principle:
International law increasingly recognizes LGBTQ+ rights violations as human rights violations, including employment and social benefits.
3. Key Principles from Judicial Interpretation
From these cases, we can derive:
Criminalization of consensual acts is discriminatory (Naz Foundation, Navtej Singh Johar).
Privacy, dignity, and autonomy are fundamental rights (Puttaswamy).
Transgender and non-binary persons have a legal right to self-identification (NALSA).
Discrimination in employment, housing, or benefits constitutes human rights violation (X v. Canada, S.S. Hong Kong).
Judicial interventions correct social prejudice and uphold constitutional morality over popular morality (Navtej Singh Johar).
RELATED Blog
comments