Case Comment: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: The Indian Supreme Court’s Decriminalization of Same-Sex Relations

Gautam Bhatia
{"title":"Case Comment: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: The Indian Supreme Court’s Decriminalization of Same-Sex Relations","authors":"Gautam Bhatia","doi":"10.1163/18757413_022001010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar, delivered in September 2018, decriminalizing same-sex relations in India, generated a storm of discussion and debate, in both India and in the world beyond. Apart from its clear and sharp verdict that held that the Indian Constitution protected the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, the decision was also noteworthy because it reversed the Court’s own prior judgment, delivered a mere five years before (in 2013), that had upheld the constitutional validity of the law that penalized same-sex relations.\nIn this case comment, we set out the chronology of judicial decisions that led to the final judgment in Navtej Singh Johar: the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in 2009, which first decriminalized same-sex relations, the 2013 judgment of the Indian Supreme Court that reversed it, and the various judicial proceedings that continued to rumble on in the Court—an additional round known as the ‘curative hearing’, and separate litigation on the constitutional status of the right to privacy. Within this context, the paper then discusses the multiple opinions that were delivered by the Bench in Navtej Singh Johar, and examines the reasons on the basis of which the Court held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code—insofar as it criminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults—violated the fundamental rights to equality, nondiscrimination, freedom of expression, and life and personal liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The article will conclude by setting out some possibilities for the way forward, in light of the judgment.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"347 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_022001010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar, delivered in September 2018, decriminalizing same-sex relations in India, generated a storm of discussion and debate, in both India and in the world beyond. Apart from its clear and sharp verdict that held that the Indian Constitution protected the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, the decision was also noteworthy because it reversed the Court’s own prior judgment, delivered a mere five years before (in 2013), that had upheld the constitutional validity of the law that penalized same-sex relations. In this case comment, we set out the chronology of judicial decisions that led to the final judgment in Navtej Singh Johar: the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in 2009, which first decriminalized same-sex relations, the 2013 judgment of the Indian Supreme Court that reversed it, and the various judicial proceedings that continued to rumble on in the Court—an additional round known as the ‘curative hearing’, and separate litigation on the constitutional status of the right to privacy. Within this context, the paper then discusses the multiple opinions that were delivered by the Bench in Navtej Singh Johar, and examines the reasons on the basis of which the Court held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code—insofar as it criminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults—violated the fundamental rights to equality, nondiscrimination, freedom of expression, and life and personal liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The article will conclude by setting out some possibilities for the way forward, in light of the judgment.
案例评论:Navtej Singh Johar诉印度联邦:印度最高法院对同性关系的非刑事化
2018年9月,印度最高法院在Navtej Singh Johar一案中作出判决,将印度的同性关系合法化,在印度和世界各地引发了一场讨论和辩论的风暴。除了明确而尖锐地裁定印度宪法保护LGBTQ+群体的权利外,该判决还值得注意,因为它推翻了最高法院自己在五年前(2013年)做出的先前判决,该判决支持惩罚同性关系的法律在宪法上的有效性。在这种情况下发表评论,我们的司法判决年表导致Navtej辛格Johar终审判决:德里高等法院的判决在2009年首次合法化同性关系,2013年印度最高法院推翻了判决,和各种司法程序继续轰鸣Court-an额外回合被称为“治疗听力”,和单独的诉讼隐私权的宪法地位。在此背景下,本文讨论了法官在Navtej Singh Johar一案中发表的多种意见,并探讨了法院认为印度刑法第377条违反了印度宪法保障的平等、不歧视、言论自由、生命和人身自由等基本权利的原因,因为它将成年人之间的同性关系定为犯罪。本文最后将根据判决,提出前进道路的一些可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信