In NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that:
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C.
1. In Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI (September 2018), a 5-Judge Constitution Bench unanimously read down Section 377 IPC.
2. The Court held: Section 377 IPC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to the extent it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults; bestiality and sexual conduct without consent remain criminal.
3. The judgment built on Puttaswamy (2017) — right to privacy, dignity, autonomy includes sexual orientation.
4. Overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) which had upheld Section 377.
5. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: UDHR 1948 / ICCPR 1966 / ICESCR 1966 / CAT 1984 / CEDAW 1979 / CRC 1989 / PHRA 1993 / Constitution Part III — Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1_
Related questions
The RIGHT TO FOOD under ICESCR Article 11 was elaborated in CESCR General Comment No. 12 (Article 13 ICESCR recognises the right to EDUCATION. Primary education shall be:Section 11A NHRC complaints are admitted on grounds of:The KAMPALA AMENDMENTS to the Rome Statute (2010) activated the CRIME OF AGGRESSION jurisdThe DOCTRINE OF EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION of HUMAN RIGHTS treaties (per the ICJ Wall AThe PRINCIPLE OF PROGRESSIVE REALIZATION in ICESCR (Article 2(1)) is balanced by the doctrIn NUREMBERG TRIALS 1945-46, the International Military Tribunal articulated the principleArticle 41 ICCPR provides for INTER-STATE COMPLAINTS — a State Party may complain to the H