Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice

PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:

  • Petitioners: 

The petitioners in this case were individuals who challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Navtej Singh Johar, a renowned dancer and Bharatanatyam teacher, was the lead petitioner. Additional petitioners included Sunil Mehra, Ritu Dalmia, Aman Nath, Keshav Suri, Ayesha Kapur, and others. They represented members of the LGBTQ+ community who sought the decriminalization of consensual sexual acts between adults of the same gender.

  • Respondent: 

The respondent in this case was the Union of India represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice. The Union of India, as the central government entity responsible for the administration of justice and the enactment of laws, was the primary defendant defending the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC.

ACTS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED:

  • Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 377: This provision of the IPC criminalized “unnatural offenses,” including consensual sexual acts between adults of the same gender. The primary issue in the case was the constitutional validity of this section.

  • Constitution of India:

Article 14: This article ensures the right to equality before the law and equal protection under the law throughout the territory of India. The petitioners argued that Section 377 violated this fundamental right by discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation.

Article 15: Article 15 bars discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The petitioners contended that

Section 377 contravened this provision by discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Article 19(1)(a): This article safeguards the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The petitioners argued that Section 377 inhibited the freedom of expression by criminalizing certain forms of gender expression within the LGBTQ+ community.

Article 21: Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal freedom. The petitioners contended that Section 377 violated this right by impeding individuals’ autonomy over their intimate choices and undermining their inherent dignity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *