September 6, 2018
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India today scrapped the controversial Section 377 a 158-year-old colonial law on consensual gay sex, thereby making gay sex legal.
CJI Dipak Misra while reading the Judgment stated that,"Only Constitutional morality and not social morality can be allowed to permeate rule of law... Sexual orientation is one of the many natural phenomenon. Any discrimination on basis of sexual orientation amounts to violation of fundamental rights. After judgement in Puttuswamy case, privacy has been raised to fundamental right."
SC Bench has stated that,“Section 377 fails to make distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts... It had become a weapon for the harassment of LGBT and subject them to discrimination”.
CJI said that there is unanimity of opinion among 5 Judges on Section 377 and the court must try to protect the dignity of every individual of the society, including people from LGBT community.
Supreme Court noted that sexual orientation is natural & people have no control on it, LGBT community has the same rights like other members of society, CJI said.
"Sustenance of identity is the pyramid of life", observed Chief Justice Dipak Misra as he read out the verdict on decriminalisation of Section 377 of IPC.
SC said "Section 377 is irrational, arbitrary & incomprehensible, LGBT community enjoys equal rights in society like other citizens. Progressive & pragmatic view should be taken by the Court to come to the rescue of the oppressed section of society. The law must be interpreted as per the requirement of changing times"
It amounts to a retrogade step if we accept the verdict on criminalising gay sex, stated Supreme Court.
CJI further said that Suresh Koushal judgment of SC in 2013 is retrograde, & rules that intimacy in private is a matter of choice. Right to privacy as part of right to life applies fully to LGBT community.
Only a partial strike down of Section 377
The top court says consensual sex between adults in private space, which is not harmful to women or children, cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice. The apex court partially strikes down Section 377.
Supreme Court says other aspects of Section 377 dealing with unnatural sex with animals and children will remain in force.
Any kind of sexual activity with animals shall remain penal offence under Section 377 of the IPC, says SC.
SC says Section 377 of the IPC was a weapon to harass members of the LGBT community, resulting in discrimination.
Justice Chandrachud "only the first step to bury the Colonial Ghost!"
Justice DY Chandrachud said decriminalising gay sex is only the first step to bury the Colonial Ghost, adding that time has come to move forward and give the LGBT community the other constitutional rights.
Justice Chandrachud says state has no business to get into controlling the private lives of LGBT community members or for that matter, any citizen.
Justice Chandrachud while reading his judgment stated that,“Despite India gaining independence, Macaulay’s legacy (by the way of section 377) continued”.
He further added that,"So far, Section 377 provided ‘rule by the law’ instead ‘of the law’. Sexual minorities in India have lived in fear, hiding as second class citizens"
"History has been witness to stigmatisation of those who do not live by societal standards. Attack on the validity of 377 is a challenge to discrimination they have faced,” added Justice Chandrachud.
Justice Chandrachud stated that,"To deny members of LGBT community the full expression of right to sexual orientations to deny them right under constitution, its denial to right to privacy " while saying that,"Constitution protects fluidity of sexual experience".
“To move beyond decriminalisation is just the first step,” added Justice Chandrachud.
“Counselors need to adopt progressive skills to help individual families and organisations to understand the concept,” he stated.
Strongly putting forward his point he stated that,"No law can be divorced from constitutional morality, state has no business to intrude in personal matters, nor can societal norms regulate sexual orientationn
Justice R F Nariman said homosexuality is not a mental disorder
Justice RF Nariman while reading judgment penned down by him stated that,“Section 377 subjects LGBT to societal barrier”.
Justice Nariman while referring to Mental Care Act 2017 stated that it shows that the Parliament is also alive to the fact that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Justice Nariman further added that,“LGBT have a fundamental right to live with dignity, such groups are entitled to protection of law”.
He stated that,“The government should give wide publicity to the judgment".
Four Independent Judgments have been passed by Apex Court's Five Judge Constitution Bench. CJI Dipak Misra has stated that there is a consensus among the judgments, which means all the judges are in agreement.
Provision treated consensual sexual acts by adults of the same sex as an offence and provides for a life sentence for those found guilty of the act.
Section 377 is modelled on Britain’s Buggery Act of 1533 and had survived on the statute in India though it has been scrapped in Britain.
Delhi HC had decriminalised consensual gay sex in 2009 but Apex Court's Two Judge Bench had cancelled the order four years later, ruling that only parliament should be changing laws.
In 2016, Supreme Court had agreed to hear a petition by five prominent members of the LGBT, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community Bharatnatyam dancer Navtej Johar, culture expert Aman Nath, restaurateurs Ritu Dalmia and Ayesha Kapur and mediaperson Sunil Mehra, challenging the constitutionality of section 377.
Conclusions reached in the Judgement by CJI Dipak Misra and HMJ A.M. Khanwilkar) -In view of the aforesaid analysis, we record our conclusions in seriatim:- (i) The eminence of identity which has been luculently stated in the NALSA case very aptly connects human rights and the constitutional guarantee of right to life and liberty with dignity. With the same spirit, we must recognize that the concept of identity which has a constitutional tenability cannot be pigeon-holed singularly to one‘s orientation as it may keep the individual choice at bay. At the core of the concept of identity lies self-determination, realization of one‘s own abilities visualizing the opportunities and rejection of external views with a clear conscience that is in accord with constitutional norms and values or principles that are, to put in a capsule, ―constitutionally permissible‖.
(ii) In Suresh Koushal (supra), this Court overturned the decision of the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation (supra) thereby upholding the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC and stating a ground that the LGBT community comprised only a minuscule fraction of the total population and that the mere fact that the said Section was being misused is not a reflection of the vires of the Section. Such a view is constitutionally impermissible.
(iii) Our Constitution is a living and organic document capable of expansion with the changing needs and demands of the society. The Courts must commemorate that it is the Constitution and its golden principles to which they bear their foremost allegiance and they must robe themselves with the armoury of progressive and pragmatic interpretation to combat the evils of inequality and injustice that try to creep into the society. The role of the Courts gains more importance when the rights which are affected belong to a class of persons or a minority group who have been deprived of even their basic rights since time immemorial.
(iv) The primary objective of having a constitutional democracy is to transform the society progressively and inclusively. Our Constitution has been perceived to be transformative in the sense that the interpretation of its provisions should not be limited to the mere literal meaning of its words; instead they ought to be given a meaningful construction which is reflective of their intent and purpose in consonance with the changing times. Transformative constitutionalism not only includes within its wide periphery the recognition of the rights and dignity of individuals but also propagates the fostering and development of an atmosphere wherein every individual is bestowed with adequate opportunities to develop socially, economically and politically. Discrimination of any kind strikes at the very core of any democratic society. When guided by transformative constitutionalism, the society is dissuaded from indulging in any form of discrimination so that the nation is guided towards a resplendent future.
(v) Constitutional morality embraces within its sphere several virtues, foremost of them being the espousal of a pluralistic and inclusive society. The concept of constitutional morality urges the organs of the State, including the Judiciary, to preserve the heterogeneous nature of the society and to curb any attempt by the majority to usurp the rights and freedoms of a smaller or minuscule section of the populace. Constitutional morality cannot be martyred at the altar of social morality and it is only constitutional morality that can be allowed to permeate into the Rule of Law. The veil of social morality cannot be used to violate fundamental rights of even a single individual, for the foundation of constitutional morality rests upon the recognition of diversity that pervades the society.
(vi) The right to live with dignity has been recognized as a human right on the international front and by number of precedents of this Court and, therefore, the constitutional courts must strive to protect the dignity of every individual, for without the right to dignity, every other right would be rendered meaningless. Dignity is an inseparable facet of every individual that invites reciprocative respect from others to every aspect of an individual which he/she perceives as an essential attribute of his/her individuality, be it an orientation or an optional expression of choice. The Constitution has ladened the judiciary with the very important duty to protect and ensure the right of every individual including the right to express and choose without any impediments so as to enable an individual to fully realize his/her fundamental right to live with dignity.
(vii) Sexual orientation is one of the many biological phenomena which is natural and inherent in an individual and is controlled by neurological and biological factors. The science of sexuality has theorized that an individual exerts little or no control over who he/she gets attracted to. Any discrimination on the basis of one‘s sexual orientation would entail a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
(viii) After the privacy judgment in Puttaswamy (supra), the right to privacy has been raised to the pedestal of a fundamental right. The reasoning in Suresh Koushal (supra), that only a minuscule fraction of the total population comprises of LGBT community and that the existence of Section 377 IPC abridges the fundamental rights of a very minuscule percentage of the total populace, is found to be a discordant note. The said reasoning in Suresh Koushal (supra), in our opinion, is fallacious, for the framers of our Constitution could have never intended that the fundamental rights shall be extended for the benefit of the majority only and that the Courts ought to interfere only when the fundamental rights of a large percentage of the total populace is affected. In fact, the said view would be completely against the constitutional ethos, for the language employed in Part III of the Constitution as well as the intention of the framers of our Constitution mandates that the Courts must step in whenever there is a violation of the fundamental rights, even if the right/s of a single individual is/are in peril.
(ix) There is a manifest ascendance of rights under the Constitution which paves the way for the doctrine of progressive realization of rights as such rights evolve with the evolution of the society. This doctrine, as a natural corollary, gives birth to the doctrine of non-retrogression, as per which there must not be atavism of constitutional rights. In the light of the same, if we were to accept the view in Suresh Koushal (supra), it would tantamount to a retrograde step in the direction of the progressive interpretation of the Constitution and denial of progressive realization of rights.
(x) Autonomy is individualistic. Under the autonomy principle, the individual has sovereignty over his/her body. He/she can surrender his/her autonomy wilfully to another individual and their intimacy in privacy is a matter of their choice. Such concept of identity is not only sacred but is also in recognition of the quintessential facet of humanity in a person‘s nature. The autonomy establishes identity and the said identity, in the ultimate eventuate, becomes a part of dignity in an individual.
(xi) A cursory reading of both Sections 375 IPC and 377 IPC reveals that although the former Section gives due recognition to the absence of ‗wilful and informed consent‘ for an act to be termed as rape, per contra, Section 377 does not contain any such qualification embodying in itself the absence of ‗wilful and informed consent‘ to criminalize carnal intercourse which consequently results in criminalizing even voluntary carnal intercourse between homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders. Section 375 IPC, after the coming into force of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, has not used the words ‗subject to any other provision of the IPC‘. This indicates that Section 375 IPC is not subject to Section 377 IPC.
(xii) The expression ‗against the order of nature‘ has neither been defined in Section 377 IPC nor in any other provision of the IPC. The connotation given to the expression by various judicial pronouncements includes all sexual acts which are not intended for the purpose of procreation. Therefore, if coitus is not performed for procreation only, it does not per se make it ‗against the order of nature‘.
(xiii) Section 377 IPC, in its present form, being violative of the right to dignity and the right to privacy, has to be tested, both, on the pedestal of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution as per the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi (supra) and other later authorities.
(xiv) An examination of Section 377 IPC on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution reveals that the classification adopted under the said Section has no reasonable nexus with its object as other penal provisions such as Section 375 IPC and the POCSO Act already penalize non-consensual carnal intercourse. Per contra, Section 377 IPC in its present form has resulted in an unwanted collateral effect whereby even ‗consensual sexual acts‘, which are neither harmful to children nor women, by the LGBTs have been woefully targeted thereby resulting in discrimination and unequal treatment to the LGBT community and is, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(xv) Section 377 IPC, so far as it criminalises even consensual sexual acts between competent adults, fails to make a distinction between non-consensual and consensual sexual acts of competent adults in private space which are neither harmful nor contagious to the society. Section 377 IPC subjects the LGBT community to societal pariah and dereliction and is, therefore, manifestly arbitrary, for it has become an odious weapon for the harassment of the LGBT community by subjecting them to discrimination and unequal treatment. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Shayara Bano (supra), Section 377 IPC is liable to be partially struck down for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
xvi) An examination of Section 377 IPC on the anvil of Article 19(1)(a) reveals that it amounts to an unreasonable restriction, for public decency and morality cannot be amplified beyond a rational or logical limit and cannot be accepted as reasonable grounds for curbing the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and choice of the LGBT community. Consensual carnal intercourse among adults, be it homosexual or heterosexual, in private space, does not in any way harm the public decency or morality. Therefore, Section 377 IPC in its present form violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
(xvii) Ergo, Section 377 IPC, so far as it penalizes any consensual sexual relationship between two adults, be it homosexuals (man and a man), heterosexuals (man and a woman) or lesbians (woman and a woman), cannot be regarded as constitutional. However, if anyone, by which we mean both a man and a woman, engages in any kind of sexual activity with an animal, the said aspect of Section 377 is constitutional and it shall remain a penal offence under Section 377 IPC. Any act of the description covered under Section 377 IPC done between two individuals without the consent of any one of them would invite penal liability under Section 377 IPC.
(xviii) The decision in Suresh Koushal (supra), not being in consonance with what we have stated hereinabove, is overruled.
Conclusions reached in the Judgement by HMJ R.F. Nariman -
We may conclude by stating that persons who are homosexual have a fundamental right to live with dignity, which, in the larger framework of the Preamble of India, will assure the cardinal constitutional value of fraternity that has been discussed in some of our judgments (See (1) Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 7 SCC 547 at paragraphs 16, 25 and 52; and (2) Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 at paragraphs 153 to 156). We further declare that such groups are entitled to the protection of equal laws, and are entitled to be treated in society as human beings without any stigma being attached to any of them. We further declare that Section 377 insofar as it criminalises homosexual sex and transgender sex between consenting adults is unconstitutional. 98. We are also of the view that the Union of India shall take all measures to ensure that this judgment is given wide publicity through the public media, which includes television, radio, print and online media at regular intervals, and initiate programs to reduce and finally eliminate the stigma associated with such persons. Above all, all government officials, including and in particular police officials, and other officers of the Union of India and the States, be given periodic sensitization and awareness training of the plight of such persons in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.
Conclusions reached in the Judgement by HMJ Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud -
(i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional; (ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by the Constitution; (iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation; (iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law; and
(v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled.
Conclusions reached in the Judgement by HMJ Indu Malhotra -
i. In view of the aforesaid findings, 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 intercouse against minors, and acts of beastiality.
iv. The judgment in Suresh K. Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors.57 is hereby overruled for the reasons stated in paragraph 18.
Supreme Court Five Judge Constitution Bench Judgement on Section 377 IPC, Legalising Gay Sex in India by Latest Laws Team on Scribd
Picture Source :
