In NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that:
Aconsensual sex between adults of any orientation is criminal (cf. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1) (cf. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1)
BSection 377 is fully constitutional in all applications (cf. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1) (cf. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1)
CSection 377 IPC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to the extent it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults — read down — recognising right to dignity, autonomy, equality of LGBTQ+ persons
DSame-sex sexual conduct is unconstitutional (cf. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1) (cf. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1)
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C. Section 377 IPC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to the extent it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults — read down — recognising right to dignity, autonomy, equality of LGBTQ+ persons
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