Skip to main content

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India & Ors

 



Case Study

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India & Ors

By: Anjali Tiwari

Facts of the case:

Consensual sex between gays was classified as a "unnatural offence" under Section 377 of the IPC, and thus was made illegal. It discriminates against a minority primarily on the basis of their sexual orientation, which is similar to sex discrimination. In Suresh Kaushal and Anr Vs. NAZ Foundation and Ors, the section was challenged. It is claimed that it is in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. In response, the Supreme Court issued an ambiguous ruling, indicating that the decision to decriminalize homosexuality should have been decided by Parliament rather than the courts. The courts can only do so if the statute is proven to be in violation of constitutional provisions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the court stated that because fewer than 200 cases have emerged in 150 years, there is insufficient evidence to declare that section 377 IPC is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court stated that Section 377 does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality, without going into greater detail. The same judgement was challenged in the Navtej Singh case by five members of the LGBTQ community who petitioned for the repeal of Section 377 IPC, which criminalized consensual sex between gays.

Citation: AIR 2018 SC 4321; W.P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2018 D. No. 14961/2016
Petitoner:

  1. Navtej singh Johar

  2. Ritu Dalmia

  3. Ayesha Kapur

  4. Aman Nath

  5. Sunil Mehra

Respondent: Ministry of Health, represented by Tushar Mehta
Bench: CJI Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice
D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra. 

Issues: Constitutionality of Section 377 of IPC

Arguments from the side of Petitioner:

1) Homosexuality, bisexuality, and other sexual orientations are all natural and should not be regarded as illnesses. Criminalizing it degrades a person's dignity, causes confusion about gender identification, and infringes on the right to privacy provided by the constitution's Art 21. It also has an impact on personality development, relationship building, forcible affiliation, and other fundamental aspirations protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

2) The LGBT community makes up 7-8 percent of the Indian population and is discriminated against and abused because of their sexual orientation. As a result, they require more protection than other populations in order to reach their full potential and live without fear, apprehension, or dread.

3) Although transgender people have been recognized as a third gender and have been granted certain rights as a result of the NALSA case, their consensual acts are still considered illegal.

4) The petitioners want Section 377 of the IPC repealed inasmuch as it criminalizes gays having consensual sex. They believe that section 377 should be restricted to bestiality and non-consensual actions.

5) Sec 377, according to the petitioner, infringes multiple fundamental rights, including the right to dignity, equality, privacy, liberty, and freedom of expression.

6) The section violates Art 14 of the constitution since there is no discernible difference or fair classification between natural and unnatural sex. The phrases aren't specified anywhere in the regulation or the statute, thus they're ambiguous.

7) The section also violates the constitution's Article 15 since it discriminates against people based on the sex of their sexual partners.

Arguments from the side of Respondent:

1) Sec 377, according to the respondent on behalf of Intervener, comprises organ abuse, and such acts are undignified and disparaging, amounting to constitutional wrong and constitutional immorality.

2) This court has given the community with sufficient rights in NALSA, and the further reliefs sought by petitioners are only an affront to privacy and personal liberty, violating the concept of public morality.

3) Sec 377 criminalization is more significant now since homosexuals who engage in those acts are more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals, and so the right to privacy should not be granted to them.

4) Apart from utterly destroying the family structure, marital institution, and social culture, declaring Sec 377 unlawful will also destroy the country's political, economic, and cultural history.

5) Sec 377 does not infringe on a person's constitutional rights because it is the state's responsibility to impose reasonable restrictions on some activities, such as carnal intercourse, in order to protect citizens from anything objectionable and harmful.

6) It does not infringe Art 14 because the state has the authority to determine who should be considered a class for the purposes of enacting legislation based on reasonable classification. Furthermore, the Section simply describes an offence and the punishment associated with it.

7) It does not infringe Art 15 because the provision only prohibits discrimination based on sex, not sexual orientation, which is not mentioned anywhere.

8) The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, the Special Marriage Act, the Indian Divorce Act, and the Hindu Marriage Act would all be affected.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned a 158-year-old rule on homosexuality that deemed carnal intercourse against nature a crime. The court overturned its prior decision in the Suresh Kaushal case, declaring Sec 377 illegal since it violated the Constitution's Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.

Analysis

It was one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in terms of the LGBTQ community's claim to equality, which had been denied by Victorian-era legislation. Discrimination against an individual based on sexual orientation is extremely offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual, and the community deserves equal rights and respect as any other individual.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to have perfor

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske