Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Court Delhi High Court
Date decided July 02, 2009
Citation(s) 160 Delhi Law Times 277
Judge(s) sitting Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, S. Muralidhar
Keywords
Homosexuality

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[1] is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution.

Contents

Background

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, introduced during British rule of India, criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature". This phrase was interpreted to mean all forms of sexual activity other than heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse.[2]

The movement to repeal Section 377 was led by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, a non-governmental organization, which filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[3] In 2003, the Delhi High Court refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners had no locus standi in the matter. Naz Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a public interest lawsuit in this case, and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on the merits.[4]

In 2006, the National AIDS Control Organisation filed an affidavit stating that the enforcement of Section 377 violates LGBT rights.[5] Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called "Voices Against 377", which supported the demand to "read down" section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.[6]

Judgment

The case came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar, and the judgment was delivered on 2 Jul 2009.[7]

The Court located the rights to dignity and privacy within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, and held that criminalization of consensual gay sex violated these rights.[8]

The Court also held that Section 377 offends the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, because it creates an unreasonable classification and targets homosexuals as a class.[9] Public animus and disgust towards a particular social group or vulnerable minority, it held, is not a valid ground for classification under Article 14. Article 15 of the Constitution forbids discrimination based on certain characteristics, including sex. The Court held that the word "sex" includes not only biological sex but also sexual orientation, and therefore discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is not permissible under Article 15.[10] The Court also noted that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to health, and concluded that Section 377 is an impediment to public health because it hinders HIV-prevention efforts.[11]

The Court did not strike down Section 377 as a whole. The section was declared unconstitutional insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private. The judgement keeps intact the provision insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors. The court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law.[12]

Reception

According to an eyewitness account, as the Chief Justice read out the conclusion, "an audible gasp went around the room. By the time the Chief Justice had finished reading the conclusion of the judgment, people were openly weeping and there were handshakes and hugs all around."[13]

Within hours, news of the judgment was being carried by international news sites. Lawrence Liang called it India's Roe moment.[14] Activists,[15] commentators and organizations like UNAIDS[16] lauded the decision, while some religious leaders[17] and politicians[18] voiced displeasure over the judgment.

Some special leave petitions were filed in the Supreme Court requesting an interim stay of the judgment, pending an appeal. However, the Supreme Court rejected those requests.[19]

References

  1. ^ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277 (Delhi High Court 2009)
  2. ^ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277, p. 2 (Delhi High Court 2009)
  3. ^ "Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights". CNN-IBN. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights/96152-3.html. Retrieved 2009-07-02. 
  4. ^ Sheela Bhatt (2006-02-03). "Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC". Rediff News. http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/03gay.htm?q=tp&file=.htm. Retrieved 2009-07-07. 
  5. ^ "Govt's AIDS cell pushes to legalise homosexuality". The Times of India. 2006-07-20. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Govts-AIDS-cell-pushes-to-legalise-homosexuality/articleshow/1779097.cms. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 
  6. ^ Shibu Thomas (2008-05-20). "Delhi HC to take up PIL on LGBT rights". The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Delhi_HC_to_take_up_PIL_on_gay_rights/articleshow/3054907.cms. Retrieved 2009-07-07. 
  7. ^ "Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex". CNN-IBN. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex/96148-3.html. Retrieved 2009-07-02. 
  8. ^ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277, p. 48 (Delhi High Court 2009)
  9. ^ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277, p. 91 (Delhi High Court 2009)
  10. ^ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277, p. 104 (Delhi High Court 2009)
  11. ^ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277, p. 72 (Delhi High Court 2009)
  12. ^ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277, p. 132 (Delhi High Court 2009)
  13. ^ Bhardwaj, Kajal (2009-05-07). "Reforming Macaulay". Deccan Chronicle. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/43776/print. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 
  14. ^ Raghavan, Vikram. "Navigating the Noteworthy and Nebulous in Naz Foundation". http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2009/07/navigating-noteworthy-and-nebulous-in.html. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 
  15. ^ "Gay sex judgment greeted with delight and jubilation". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 2009-07-04. http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/04/stories/2009070451260300.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 
  16. ^ Aarti, Dhar (2009-07-03). "Judgment on Section 377 welcomed". The Hindu (Chennai, India). http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/03/stories/2009070361381800.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 
  17. ^ Khan, Atiq (2009-07-03). "Muslim clerics feel family system will be destroyed". The Hindu (Chennai, India). http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/03/stories/2009070361341800.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 
  18. ^ Hunasavadi, Srikanth (2009-08-07). "Decriminalising homosexuality will send wrong signals". DNA. http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/interview_decriminalising-homosexuality-will-send-wrong-signals_1272161. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 
  19. ^ "SC declines to stay HC verdict on homosexuality". The Indian Express. 2009-07-20. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-declines-to-stay-hc-verdict-on-homosexuality/491686/0. Retrieved 2009-11-27. 

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем решить контрольную работу

Look at other dictionaries:

  • National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice — National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others Court Constitutional Court of South Africa Full case name The National Coalition for Gay and …   Wikipedia

  • Artículo 377 del código penal indio — Saltar a navegación, búsqueda El artículo 377 de la sección XVI del código penal indio es una ley de sodomía que se aprobó en la India durante el periodo colonial británico para penalizar las practicas sexuales «contra el orden de la naturaleza» …   Wikipedia Español

  • Artículo 377 del Código Penal de la India — El artículo 377 de la sección XVI del código penal indio es una ley de sodomía que se aprobó en la India durante el periodo colonial británico para penalizar las practicas sexuales «contra el orden de la naturaleza», o sea, cualquier relación… …   Wikipedia Español

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”