Racial, Religious, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Or Disability-Based Crimes
1. Introduction
Discrimination-based crimes target individuals or groups because of immutable or identity-based characteristics, such as:
Race or ethnicity
Religion
Gender
Sexual orientation
Physical or mental disability
Such crimes are addressed in Indian law through constitutional protections, IPC provisions, and special legislation.
2. Legal Framework
Constitution of India
Article 14 – Equality before law
Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth
Article 17 – Abolition of untouchability
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 153A – Promoting enmity between groups on religion, race, caste, or community
Section 295A – Deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings
Section 354 – Assault or criminal force to women
Section 377 (pre-2018) – Criminalization of same-sex relations
Sections 323, 325, 326 – Physical injury, often applied in hate crimes
Other Laws
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – For caste-based discrimination
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Rights and protection from discrimination
3. DETAILED CASE LAWS
1. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014)
Gender and Sexual Orientation
Facts
Petition by NALSA seeking recognition of transgender persons’ rights, including legal recognition and protection against discrimination.
Court Findings
Supreme Court held that transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender.
Violations of dignity and discrimination on the basis of gender identity are unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21.
Directed governments to provide:
Reservation in education and employment
Social welfare schemes
Protection from discrimination in healthcare and public spaces
Significance
Landmark judgment affirming constitutional protections for gender identity and sexual orientation.
Strengthened legal recourse against gender-based discrimination and violence.
2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Sexual Orientation – Decriminalization of Homosexuality
Facts
Challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC, which criminalized consensual same-sex relations.
Court Findings
Supreme Court read down Section 377 to exclude consensual adult sexual conduct, citing:
Right to equality (Article 14)
Freedom from discrimination (Article 15)
Right to privacy and dignity (Article 21)
Significance
Landmark case for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
Explicitly recognized discrimination and criminalization based on sexual orientation as unconstitutional.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Religious discrimination and political rights
Facts
Concerned dismissal of state governments accused of communal bias.
Petitioners alleged abuse of power to promote religious discrimination in governance.
Court Findings
Supreme Court emphasized secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.
Religious bias by government authorities is illegal and unconstitutional.
Reinforced Article 14 and Article 15 protections.
Significance
Set precedent that state cannot discriminate based on religion.
Holds importance for hate crimes motivated by religious bias.
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Gender-Based Crimes – Sexual Harassment at Workplace
Facts
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was gang-raped for opposing child marriage.
No proper law on sexual harassment existed at the time.
Court Findings
Supreme Court laid down Vishaka Guidelines, defining sexual harassment and duties of employers:
Right to safe workplace (Article 21)
Duty to prevent sexual harassment
Significance
First recognition of gender-based discrimination and violence in workplaces.
Later codified into Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
5. Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)
Disability-Based Discrimination
Facts
Visually impaired candidates were denied admission to certain government posts citing lack of awareness of disability rights.
Court Findings
Supreme Court held that denial of opportunities to persons with disabilities is unconstitutional under Article 14 and 21.
Emphasized reasonable accommodations in employment and education.
Significance
Reinforced equality rights for persons with disabilities.
Provided judicial backing for inclusive policies and anti-discrimination measures.
6. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)
Gender and Religious-Based Discrimination
Facts
Women challenged the ban on entry into the Sabarimala temple.
Court Findings
Supreme Court ruled that denying women of menstruating age access to a temple is unconstitutional.
Violates Article 14 (equality) and Article 17 (dignity).
Religious practices cannot violate fundamental rights.
Significance
Key judgment reinforcing intersection of gender and religion in discrimination law.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Ramkrishna Wagh (2000)
Caste-Based and Disability-Based Discrimination
Facts
A mentally challenged person was denied services in public office due to caste and disability.
Court Findings
Supreme Court held such discrimination as violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Directed safeguards and accessibility measures.
Significance
Strengthened rights of marginalized communities facing multiple discrimination axes.
4. KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASE LAW
Identity-based discrimination violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21.
Victims cannot be blamed; State has duty to protect.
Consent is irrelevant in cases of coercion or exploitation.
Inclusive access and rehabilitation are mandatory for persons with disabilities or marginalized identities.
Religious practices cannot override constitutional rights.
Judiciary recognizes evolving social norms, particularly for gender and sexual orientation rights.
5. CONCLUSION
Crimes based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability are considered serious human rights and constitutional violations in India.
Courts have emphasized state accountability, victim protection, and equality.
Landmark cases like NALSA (2014), Navtej Singh Johar (2018), Vishaka (1997), and Sabarimala (2018) have expanded protections.
The law has progressively moved toward inclusion, dignity, and equality, while striking down discriminatory practices.
RELATED Blog
comments