Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Non-verbal Expression
  • Date of Decision
    September 6, 2018
  • Outcome
    Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional
  • Case Number
    2018 (10) SCALE 386
  • Region & Country
    India, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Gender Expression
  • Tags
    LGBTI, Privacy, Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of India unanimously held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalized ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’, was unconstitutional in so far as it criminalized consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex. The petition, filed by dancer Navtej Singh Johar, challenged Section 377 of the Penal Code on the ground that it violated the constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of expression, equality, human dignity and protection from discrimination. The Court reasoned that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was violative of the right to equality, that criminalizing consensual sex between adults in private was violative of the right to privacy, that sexual orientation forms an inherent part of self-identity and denying the same would be violative of the right to life, and that fundamental rights cannot be denied on the ground that they only affect a minuscule section of the population.


Facts

The central issue of the case was the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377) insofar as it applied to the consensual sexual conduct of adults of the same sex in private. Section 377 was titled ‘Unnatural Offences’ and stated that “[w]hoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to [a] fine.”

The issue in the case originated in 2009 when the Delhi High Court, in the case of Naz Foundation v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, held Section 377 to be unconstitutional, in so far as it pertained to consensual sexual conduct between two adults of the same sex. In 2014, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, overturned the Delhi HC decision and granted Section 377 “the stamp of approval” [p. 11, para. 9]. When the petition in the present case was filed in 2016 challenging the 2014 decision, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court opined that a larger bench must answer the issues raised. As a result, a five-judge bench heard the matter.

The Petitioner in the present case, Navtej Singh Johar, a dancer who identified as part of the LGBT community, filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court in 2016 seeking recognition of the right to sexuality, right to sexual autonomy and right to choice of a sexual partner to be part of the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India (Constitution). Furthermore, he sought a declaration that Section 377 was unconstitutional. The Petitioner also argued that Section 377 was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality Before the Law) because it was vague in the sense that it did not define “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. [p.25, para 26] There was no intelligible differentia or reasonable classification between natural and unnatural consensual sex. Among other things, the Petitioner further argued that (i) Section 377 was violative of Art. 15 of the Constitution (Protection from Discrimination) since it discriminated on the basis of the sex of a person’s sexual partner, (ii) Section 377 had a “chilling effect” on Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) since it denied the right to express one’s sexual identity through speech and choice of romantic/sexual partner, and (iii) Section 377 violated the right to privacy as it subjected LGBT people to the fear that they would be humiliated or shunned because of “a certain choice or manner of living.” [p. 22, para. 21]

The Respondent in the case was the Union of India. Along with the Petitioner and Respondent, certain non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and other representative bodies also filed applications to intervene in the case.

The Union of India submitted that it left the question of the constitutional validity of Section 377 (as it applied to consenting adults of the same sex) to the “wisdom of the Court”. [p. 270, para. 8] Some interveners argued against the Petitioner, submitting that the right to privacy was not unbridled, that such acts were derogatory to the “constitutional concept of dignity” [p. 32, para. 39], that such acts would increase the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in society, and that declaring Section 377 unconstitutional would be detrimental to the institution of marriage and that it may violate Art. 25 of the Constitution (Freedom of Conscience and Propagation of Religion).


Decision Overview

The five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court (Court) unanimously held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377), insofar as it applied to consensual sexual conduct between adults in private, was unconstitutional. With this, the Court overruled its decision in Suresh Koushal v. Naz Foundation1 that had upheld the constitutionality of Section 377.

The Court relied upon its decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (( National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 )) to reiterate that gender identity is intrinsic to one’s personality and denying the same would be violative of one’s dignity [p. 156, para. 253(i)]. The Court relied upon its decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India2 and held that denying the LGBT community its right to privacy on the ground that they form a minority of the population would be violative of their fundamental rights. It held that Section 377 amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the right to freedom to expression since consensual carnal intercourse in private “does not in any way harm public decency or morality” [p. 165, para. 253(xvi)] and if it continues to be on the statute books, it would cause a chilling effect that would “violate the privacy right under Art. 19(1)(a)” [p. 224, para. 83]. The Court affirmed that that “intimacy between consenting adults of the same sex is beyond the legitimate interests of the state” [p. 142] and sodomy laws violate the right to equality under Art. 14 and Art. 15 of the Constitution by targeting a segment of the population for their sexual orientation. Further, the Court also relied upon its decisions in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.3 and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India4 to reaffirm that an adult’s right to “choose a life partner of his/her choice” [p. 72, para. 107] is a facet of individual liberty.

Chief Justice Misra (on behalf of himself and J. Khanwilkar) relied on the principles of transformative constitutionalism and progressive realization of rights to hold that the constitution must guide the society’s transformation from an archaic to a pragmatic society where fundamental rights are fiercely guarded. He further stated, “constitutional morality would prevail over social morality” [p. 79, para. 121] to ensure that human rights of LGBT individuals are protected, regardless of whether such rights have the approval of a majoritarian government.

J. Nariman in his opinion analyzed the legislative history of Section 377 to conclude that since the rationale for Section 377, namely Victorian morality, “has long gone” [p. 239, para. 78] there was no reason for the continuance of the law. He concluded his opinion by imposing an obligation on the Union of India to take all measures to publicize the judgment so as to eliminate the stigma faced by the LGBT community in society. He also directed government and police officials to be sensitized to the plight of the community so as to ensure favorable treatment for them.

J. Chandrachud in his opinion recognized that though Section 377 was facially neutral, its “effect was to efface identities” [p. 328, para. 51] of the LGBT community. He stated that, if Section 377 continues to prevail, the LGBT community will be marginalized from health services and the “prevalence of HIV will exacerbate” [p. 368, para. 90]. He stated that not only must the law not discriminate against same-sex relationships, it must take positive steps to achieve equal protection and to grant the community “equal citizenship in all its manifestations” [p. 270, para. 7].

J. Malhotra affirmed that homosexuality is “not an aberration but a variation of sexuality” [p. 455]. She stated that the right to privacy does not only include the right to be left alone but also extends to “spatial and decisional privacy” [p. 476]. She concluded her opinion by stating that history owes an apology to members of the LGBT community and their families for the delay in providing redress for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries.


  1. Suresh Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1
 

  2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1  

  3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., 2018 (5) SCALE 422  

  4. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192  


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The case expands expression as it holds, inter alia, that sexual orientation forms part of one’s Right to Freedom of Expression and is an integral part of the Right to Privacy.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • India, Indian Penal Code, Act No. 46/1860, sec. 377
  • India, Const. art. 21
  • India, Const. art. 19
  • India, Const., Art. 14
  • India, Const., Art. 15
  • India, Puttaswamy v. India, 2017 (10) SCALE 1
  • India, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438
  • India, Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192
  • India, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., AIR 2018 SC 1933
  • India, Manoj Narula v. Union of India, 2014 (9) SCC 1
  • India, Francis Carolie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of N.C.T. of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608
  • India, Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and others, [(1996) 2 SCC 752]
  • India, Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1
  • India, Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 S.C.C. 600
  • India, Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 398
  • India, Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591
  • India, Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
  • India, Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] S.C.R. 759
  • India, Singhal v. Union of India, [2015] Pet. No. 167 of 2012
  • India, Garg. v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1
  • India, Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
  • India, Santosh Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 253

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
  • U.K., Mosley v. News Grp. Newspapers Limited, [2008] EWHC 1777
  • Can., Re: Same Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698
  • U.S., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884 (1992)
  • Can., Egan v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513
  • U.S., Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
  • U.S., Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)
  • S. Afr., National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Home Affairs, 2002 (2) SA 1 (CC)
  • U.S., Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)
  • U.S., Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
  • U.S., Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 830 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2016)
  • U.S., Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
  • Can., Vriend v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493
  • Phil., Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission of Elections, G. R. No.19058 (2010)
  • U.S., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)
  • U.S., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
  • U.S., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
  • Isr., H.C.J. 721/94 El-Al Israel Airlines Ltd. v. Jonathan Danielwitz (1994)
  • Trin. & Tobago, Jones v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, Claim No. CV 2017-00720 (2018)
  • Fiji, Nadan v. State, [2005] FJHC 500
  • Ecuador, Constitutional Court, Case No. 111-97-TC (1997)
  • Belize, Orozco v. The Attorney General of Belize, Claim No. 668 of 2010
  • H.K., Leung TC William Roy v. Secretary for Justice, 3 HKLRD 657 (CFI)
  • Nepal, Sunil Babu Pant & Others v Nepal Government, Writ Petition No.917 of 2007
  • U.S., United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)
  • U.S., Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018)
  • N. Ir., Lee v. McArthur and Ashers Baking Co., [2016] NICA 39 (2016)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The decision is historic in nature and holds an extremely high precedential value as it has been decided by a five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India. It establishes a biding precedent on all courts across India and smaller benches of the Supreme Court.

Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction.

Considering that the provision struck down was from a colonial-era legislation and similar provisions still exist in some Commonwealth nations (Singapore, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Pakistan, Ghana etc.) the decision is likely to hold persuasive value in such jurisdictions too.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Amicus Briefs and Other Legal Authorities

  • Note (Written Submissions) of Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for one of the Petitioners

    https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mukul-Rohatgi-writtten-submissions.pdf
  • Note (Written Submissions) of Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appearing for one of the Petitioners

    https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Arvind-Datar-Written-Submissions-1.pdf
  • Note (Written Submissions) of Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan appearing for one of the Intervenors

    https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Shyam-Divan-written-submissions-1.pdf
  • Note (Written Submissions) of Senior Advocate C.U. Singh appearing for one of the Intervenors

    https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CU-Singh-written-submissions.pdf
  • Note (Written Submissions) of Dr. Maneka Guruswamy appearing for one of the Petitioners

    https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Menaka-Guruswamy-Written-Submission-1.pdf
  • Note (Written Submissions) of Krishnan Venugopal appearing for one of the Intervenors

    https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Krishnan-Venugopal-written-submissions.pdf
  • Note (Written Submissions) of Manoj George appearing for one of the Respondents

    https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Written-submissions-Manoj-George.pdf

  • Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


    Attachments:

    Have comments?

    Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

    Send Feedback