Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
A simple, student-first explainer on Section 377 IPC and Fundamental Rights.
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court of India decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults. It held that criminal law cannot punish people for who they are or whom they love. Section 377 IPC was read down because it violated equality, expression, privacy, and dignity.
Issues
- Does Section 377 violate Article 14 (equality)?
- Does it burden Article 19(1)(a) (speech/expression) by suppressing identity?
- Does it violate Article 21 (life with dignity, privacy, autonomy)?
- Is discrimination by sexual orientation barred under Article 15?
Rules
Section 377 IPC (as originally framed): criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”
Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, and 15 of the Constitution protect equality, expression, privacy, dignity, and bar discrimination.
Facts (Timeline)
Timeline
A noted dancer and other members of the LGBT community filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking protection of their rights.
Petitioners said sexual orientation is natural and consensual adult relations are not illness or crime.
They argued that criminalising sexuality violates privacy, dignity, and decisional autonomy under Article 21 and chills identity under Article 19(1)(a).
They relied on Puttaswamy (Privacy) to say sexual orientation is a core of privacy and equality under Articles 14, 19, 21.
Respondents argued Section 377 simply defines an offence; classification is within State power and Article 15 does not name “sexual orientation.”
They also claimed public health risks (HIV/AIDS) and said the State can impose reasonable restrictions on “unnatural” acts.
Arguments
Petitioners
- Sexual orientation is innate and natural; adults with consent should not be criminalised.
- Section 377 violates privacy, dignity, autonomy (Art. 21) and suppresses identity (Art. 19(1)(a)).
- It fails equality (Art. 14) and amounts to discrimination (Art. 15).
- Puttaswamy confirms privacy covers sexual orientation and intimate choice.
Respondents
- Section 377 is a valid penal definition; the State can classify for legislation.
- Article 15 does not specifically mention sexual orientation.
- Public health: those engaging in such acts are vulnerable to HIV/AIDS; privacy is not a shield.
- The State may impose reasonable restrictions on acts “against the order of nature.”
Judgment (Held)
The five-judge bench unanimously held Section 377 IPC unconstitutional so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults. The Court ruled:
- Article 14 & 15: The law targeted people by sexual orientation and was arbitrary and discriminatory.
- Article 21: It violated life with dignity, privacy, and autonomy of intimate choice.
- Article 19(1)(a): It chilled expression and identity of LGBT persons.
- The Court overruled Suresh Koushal and clarified that Section 377 remains for non-consensual acts, acts with minors, and bestiality.
Ratio Decidendi
Criminal law cannot use morality to erase a minority’s identity. When a statute punishes a class for an innate characteristic, it fails equality and dignity. Privacy protects intimate choices; the State cannot intrude into consensual adult relations.
Why It Matters
- Affirms that sexual orientation is a protected ground under equality and dignity.
- Deepens privacy after Puttaswamy, linking it to autonomy and identity.
- Shows how precedent can be corrected when it harms fundamental rights.
- Guides future cases on anti-discrimination and bodily autonomy.
Key Takeaways
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “E-P-D-X” — Equality (Art.14), Privacy (21), Dignity (21), eXpression (19(1)(a)).
- Spot the target — law punishes identity (orientation).
- Check core rights — equality, privacy, dignity, expression.
- Limit the law — keep for minors/non-consent/bestiality only.
IRAC Outline
Issue: Is Section 377 IPC constitutional when applied to consenting adults?
Rules: Section 377 IPC; Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 15.
Application: The provision criminalised a class defined by orientation; it invaded privacy and dignity and chilled expression. The State’s health and morality claims did not justify such a broad intrusion.
Conclusion: Unconstitutional to the extent it covers consensual adult relations; valid for non-consensual acts, acts with minors, and bestiality.
Glossary
- Sexual Orientation
- A natural pattern of attraction; part of one’s identity.
- Privacy
- A right to control intimate, personal life choices.
- Dignity
- Respect owed to every person as an equal.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now