top of page
History owes an apology to LGBTQ persons for the discrimination
Navtej Singh Johar and Ors vs Union Of India, Thr Secretary Ministry Of Law and Justice
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF 2016
About/from the judgment:
A Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday pronounced Judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional Validity of Section 377 IPC.
Here is the summary of the Judgment
i. It is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion.
ii. The declaration of the aforesaid reading down of Section 377 shall not, however, lead to the reopening of any concluded prosecutions, but can certainly be relied upon in all pending matters whether they are at the trial, appellate, or revisional stages.
iii. The provisions of Section 377 will continue to govern non-consensual sexual acts against adults, all acts of carnal intercourse against minors, and acts of beastiality.
iv. The judgment in Suresh K. Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors.57 is overruled.
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!
Formats for use
bottom of page