FAMILY LAW PPT about case navtej singh johar v uoi

case navtej singh johar v uoi

1. FAMILY LAW-I
SUBJECT CODE: LLB 201
STUDENT NAME: Pawani Jain
ENROLLMENT NO.: 35651103523
CLASS AND SECTION: BBA LLB (A)
FACULTY NAME: Mr. Suhail Khan
TOPIC-
CASE COMMENT ON NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR
V.
UNION OF INDIA
 

2. INTRODUCTION

3. FACTS OF THE CASE
•The petition in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India was filed by five individuals,
including well-known dancer and choreographer Navtej Singh Johar, along with
others from the LGBTQ+ community, who were seeking the decriminalization of
same-sex relations between consenting adults. The petitioners sought a declaration
that Section 377 of the IPC, as it applied to consensual sexual conduct between
adults of the same sex, violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution of
India.
•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, had ruled in favor of decriminalizing same-
sex relations, declaring that Section 377 was unconstitutional. However, the
Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 2013, in a controversial decision in Suresh
Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, thereby recriminalizing same-sex acts. The 2013
judgment was criticized for ignoring the constitutional principles of equality and
dignity and for not addressing the lived realities of the LGBTQ+ community.
•After the ‘Koushal’ decision, several petitioners, including Johar, approached the
Supreme Court once again to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377. They
contended that the law, by criminalizing consensual same-sex relationships, infringed
upon the rights of individuals to live with dignity and to make decisions about their
own bodies. The Supreme Court took up the matter in 2016, and after hearing
arguments from the petitioners, the Union of India, and several intervenors, it
delivered its judgment in 2018.

4. Petitioner’s Arguments-
1.The petitioners argued that Section 377 discriminated against a class of individuals
based on their sexual orientation, thereby violating the right to equality and non-
discrimination, right to Privacy, right to Life and Personal Liberty and freedom of
Expression and Autonomy.
2.Homosexuality, Bisexuality and others sexual orientations are equally natural and
cannot be considered as some form of illness. Criminalizing it destroys a person’s
dignity, creates discomfort regarding gender identity and invades the right to privacy
guaranteed under Art 21 of the constitution. It also affects growth of personality,
relation building, forcing association and other essential desires provided under Art
19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
3.LGBT community comprises of 7-8% of the total Indian Population and are
discriminated and abused on the basis of their sexual orientation and therefore need
protection more than majority communities to achieve their full potential and live
freely without fear and apprehension.
4.Transgender section got recognition as third gender and have been given certain
rights under NALSA case, yet their consensual activities are treated as an offence.

5. Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India)-
1.The respondent on behalf of Intervener said that sec 377 constitutes abusing the
organs and such acts are undignified and derogatory and amount to constitutional
wrong and constitutional immorality.
2.Criminalization of acts in sec 377 is more relevant now as homosexuals indulging in
those acts are more prone to contact HIV than heterosexuals and henceforth right to
privacy should not be extended for the same.
3.Apart from the fact that declaring Sec 377 unconstitutional would completely
destroy the family system, institution of marriage and social culture, it will ruin the
political, economic and cultural heritage of the country.
4.Sec 377 does not violate the constitutional rights of a person as it is the duty of
state to put reasonable restrictions on certain acts like carnal intercourse to protect
the citizens from something offensive and injurious.
5.It does not violate Art 14 as the state has the power to identify who should be
regarded as a class for making laws under reasonable classification. Moreover, the
Section only defines an offence and its punishment.
6.It does not violate Art 15 as the article mainly prohibits discrimination on the basis
of sex and not sexual orientation which is nowhere described.
7.The Union contended that the issue at hand was a matter for the legislature to
decide, not the judiciary. The government argued that any change in the law should
be made through the legislative process, not through judicial interpretation.

6. COURT’S JUDGEMENT
•Right to Privacy as Fundamental: The Court relied heavily on its earlier judgment
in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where it recognized the right to privacy
as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court emphasized that privacy
includes an individual’s right to engage in consensual sexual activity in the privacy
of their own home, free from the interference of the state. The judgment
reaffirmed that sexual orientation is an essential aspect of an individual’s privacy.
•Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court held that discrimination based on
sexual orientation violated the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to
non-discrimination under Article 15 of the Constitution. It observed that sexual
orientation is an inherent characteristic, and individuals should not be punished or
stigmatized for it. The Court rejected the notion that public morality could be used
to justify the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations.
•Revisiting Precedents: The Supreme Court explicitly overruled its earlier decision in
Koushal (2013), noting that the approach taken in that judgment was not in line
with the evolving understanding of human rights and constitutional principles. The
Court observed that the decision in Koushal had failed to appreciate the fact that
the LGBTQ+ community had the right to live with dignity and equality, and that the
law should not be used to perpetuate discrimination.

7. •Impact on LGBTQ+ Rights: The Court recognized that the law had been used as
a tool of oppression and violence against the LGBTQ+ community. It
emphasized that individuals have the right to express their sexual orientation
freely without fear of persecution. The judgment marked a significant victory for
the LGBTQ+ community in India and reflected the Court’s commitment to
safeguarding the dignity of all citizens, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
•Social Change and Judicial Role: The judgment acknowledged that social
change often comes through judicial intervention, especially when legislative
bodies fail to act. It recognized the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the law
reflects the evolving standards of justice and human rights.
•Constitutional Morality over Social Morality: The Court also made an
important distinction between "constitutional morality" and "social morality."
The former, according to the Court, is based on constitutional values of equality,
dignity, and freedom, while the latter is influenced by public opinion and social
prejudices. The judgment emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail
over social morality when it comes to safeguarding individual rights.

8. IMPLICATIONS OF THE
JUDGEMENT

9. CONCLUSION