In this article we will discuss about section 377 which talks about the homosexuality in India so in order to understand this better we will talk about five case laws which deals with this matter.
The landmark Case laws are as follows—-
1. Naz Foundation case 2009
This is the case of Naz foundation vs Government of NCT Delhi, so in this case Naz Foundation is such a NGO which deals with HIV AIDS and such other diseases. In this case a question had arised that whether Section 377 should be removed. The court had dealt with this issue from two different angles. The first one being right to life article 21 the constitution of India, in this it was said that a person without dignity and privacy cannot enjoy the fundamental right to life.
The second one being right to equality which is explained in Article 14 and 15 in relating to this concept it was said that section 377 was violative of article 14 because it unreasonable discriminate homosexual as a class and criminalises their consentual sex.
Under article 15 the discrimination on basis of sex is prohibited now here sex does not only include biological sex this also means the sexual orientation of a person. It was said that in comparison to biological test the psychological test of a person should be given more weightage.
In 2009 delhi High Court by announcing the landmark judgement of naz foundation had said that section 377 which criminalises homosexual act should be declared as unconstitutional, leaving the amendment part to the parliament.
2. Suresh Kumar Kaushal vs Naz Foundation 2013
In this case two main arguments were presented the first one being homosexuality is a criminal offence only the Parliament could decriminalize it, and the courts could not interfere in this issue. The second one being that right to privacy could not be extended to such a limit so that offence could be committed, therefore right to privacy will not cover homosexual acts.
This judgement was tagged as a backward step of India by various International organisations.
So after the 2009 judgement of the nudge Foundation the people who had freely started expressing their sexual orientation in front of the world, after the 2013 judgement they were being tagged as criminals and being targeted.
3. Nalsa vs Union of India and ORS 2014
In this case a loophole came up that all existing Indian laws are focused on binary genders male and female and the rights of the transgender community is not protected by any provision of the Indian law and due to the same reason the transgender community was being discriminated. To deal with this snowfall the supreme court had recognised multifaced rights of the transgender community.
under Article 14 every rights enjoyed by any person that protected and within this men women and transgender were all included.
Under article 15 and 16 no gender based discrimination should be there.
It was also said that under article 19 the privacy gender identity and integrity of a person is protected under article 19 1 a.
In this judgement indirectly article Section 377 could also be included.
It was also said that article 21 gives us the right to choose gender identity that means that it was in the need of having better provisions.
Due to this case the right to self identity and gender identity were given a legal recognition equal treatment of all the peoples were given, which means that men women and transgender would receive equal recognition.
4. Puttaswamy case 2017
This is the famous privacy case in which 9 judge benches was constituted,
This bench was headed by justice chandrachud and he said that there is a need of rectifying the mistake of Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kaushal case, it was also mentioned that sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy this attribute is protected by part 3 of Indian Constitution. In this case the miniscule attribute was rejected.
5. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India 2018
In this famous case it had decriminalized all consensual sex among adults in private including homosexual sex and thereby partially declared Section 377 as unconstitutional. Such morality norms which is based on the subject should be given away.
In this case it was also said that in the 2009 judgement of the naz Foundation which had said that sex consists of biological sex and the sexual orientation is the perfect definition and the appropriate approach. Article 19 protects the right of every individual to disclose his Finally Supreme Court said that right to life and liberty in films right to privacy right to dignity and right to autonomy.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
You may also like to read: