NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. Supreme Court, 06-09-2018
| Judge | HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
| Docket Number | W.P.(Crl.) No.-000076-000076 / 2016 |
| Parties | NAVTEJ SINGH JOHARUNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. |
| Date | 06 September 2018 |
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF 2016
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
THR. SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE …Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 572 OF 2016
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 100 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 101 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 121 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)
C O N T E N T S
S. No(s).
Heading
Page No(s)
A.
Introduction…………………………………………
3-11
B.
The Reference………………………………………
11-15
2
C.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners……
15-30
D.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
and other intervenors.………………………….…
31-44
E.
Decisions in Naz Foundation and Suresh
Koushal………………..……………………………..
45-48
F.
Other judicial pronouncements on Section 377
IPC ……………………….…………………………..
48-57
G.
The Constitution – an organic charter of
progressive rights…………………………………
57-64
H.
Transformative constitutionalism and the
rights of LGBT community……………………….
65-74
I.
Constitutional morality and Section 377 IPC….
74-81
J.
Perspective of human dignity……………………
81-89
K.
Sexual orientation………………………………….
89-96
L.
Privacy and its concomitant aspects…………...
96-111
M.
Doctrine of progressive realization of
rights………………………………………………….
111-118
N.
International perspective………………………….
118
(i)
United States………………………………
118-122
(ii)
Canada……………………………………..
123-125
(iii)
South Africa……………………………….
125
(iv)
United Kingdom………………………….
126-127
(v)
Other Courts/Jurisdictions……………..
127-129
3
O.
Comparative analysis of Section 375 and
Section 377 IPC………………………………….…
129-140
P.
Q.
The litmus test for survival of Section 377
IPC…….………………………………………………
Conclusions…………………………………………
140-156
156-166
A. Introduction
Not for nothing, the great German thinker, Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe, I am what I am, so take me as I am
similarly, Arthur No one can escape
from their individuality profitable to quote a few
lines from John Stuart Mill:-
;
and the danger which threatens human nature is not
the excess, but the deficiency of personal impulses
The emphasis on the unique being of an individual is the salt of
his/her life. Denial of self-expression is inviting death. Irreplaceability
of individuality and identity is grant of respect to self. This realization
-determined design. One defines oneself.
That is the glorious form of individuality. In the present case, our
To continue reading
Request your trial