Source: https://www.bananaip.com/ip-news-center/the-consensual-is-no-longer-criminal/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:13:41+00:00

Document:
We’re fundamentally an Intellectual Property resource. However, we believe the verdict in question here, striking down Section 377, is a historic moment in our vast legal landscape, and thus worthy of mention. Further, this verdict has implications on privacy laws, and hopefully on a societal outlook that will spur changes in a multitude of other areas of law, many of which are yet to be analyzed in this specific respect.
On September 6th, 2018, the Supreme Court of India struck down parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, largely on the basis of the 2017 Supreme Court decision in Puttaswamy and the 2009 Delhi High Court Decision in Naz Foundation. In its decision involving multiple writ petitions, the Supreme court discussed at length the effect of the existing law on individual privacy, the rights of transgender people, and the importance of consent in Section 375 of the IPC, while determining the constitutionality of Section 377.
The decision, issued by a 5-judge constitutional bench, involves 6 writ petitions, 5 opinions, and a unanimous verdict that Section 377, insofar as it covers consensual activity between adults, is unconstitutional in light of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The most comprehensive petition against Section 377 was filed in 2001 by the Naz Foundation in the Delhi High Court, whose verdict in 2009 read down Section 377 to exclude consensual activity between adults. Although the government did not appeal this judgement, many other organisations filed appeals in the Supreme Court. In 2013, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Delhi Court in Koushal v. Naz, stating that the judiciary did not have to intervene, and any amendment to the section would have to be carried out by the legislature.
While a curative petition against the decision in Koushal v. Naz was still pending, five eminent members of the LGBT community filed petitions in the Supreme Court in 2016. Before these petitions were heard, the Supreme court delivered its decision in 2017 in Puttaswamy, which upheld the fundamental right to privacy read into Article 21. These decisions directly and significantly impacted the Supreme Court’s reasoning, as discussed below.
The Writ Petition was filed for declaring the following as part of the right to life under Article 21: the right to sexual autonomy and the right to choose a sexual partner; and consequently, declaring Section 377 unconstitutional.
The petitioners submitted that homosexuality, bisexuality and other sexual orientations are equally natural and their consensual expression is neither an illness nor a crime. They further submitted that, based on the majority opinion in Puttaswamy, and the decision in NALSA, sexual orientation was an essential component of guaranteed Constitutional rights and is also an integral and innate facet of every individual‘s identity. It was also submitted that the presumption of the constitutionality of a statutory provision merely imposed an evidentiary burden on the petitioners to show a prima facie violation of fundamental rights, beyond which the presumption was invalid. The petitioners argued that Section 377 is overly broad and arbitrary in its classification, violative of the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19, and the right of privacy under Article 21.
The Respondent, the Union government submitted it would leave the question of the Constitutional validity of Section 377 to the wisdom of the court. On behalf of the Respondent, various intervenors submitted that no further relief could be granted to the transgender community beyond the rights granted in NALSA. It was submitted that unnatural acts as contemplated by section 377 resulted in higher incidence of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals. Another intervenor submitted that the striking down of Section 377 would render the victims complaining of forced acts covered under the existing Section 377 IPC remediless. Another intervenor submitted that Section 377 criminalizes the act irrespective of gender or sexual orientation of the persons involved, and is therefore not discriminatory. The intervenors also contended that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited under Article 15 of the Constitution.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, J, framed the issue as whether sexual orientation alone is to be protected or both orientation and choice are to be accepted as long as the exercise of these rights by an individual do not affect another‘s choice, while maintaining dignity and privacy.
Quoting Chandrachud J. in Koushal v. Naz, the Court held that, the mere fact that a minuscule fraction of the country’s population constituted lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders is not a sustainable basis to deny the right to privacy.
Holding that fundamental rights, by their very nature, are guaranteed to all persons, the Court held, “the provisions have employed the words ‘any person’ and ‘any citizen’ making it manifest that the constitutional courts are under an obligation to protect the fundamental rights of every single citizen without waiting for the catastrophic situation when the fundamental rights of the majority of citizens get violated.
Applying a “litmus test” to determine whether Section 377 should survive in its current form, the Court held that the provision abridges human dignity and the fundamental right to privacy and to choose a partner, and this choice should not be subject to the fear of criminal prosecution.
The Court stated, “Section 377 IPC, in its present form, abridges both human dignity as well as the fundamental right to privacy and choice of the citizenry, howsoever small. As sexual orientation is an essential and innate facet of privacy, the right to privacy takes within its sweep the right of every individual including that of the LGBT to express their choices in terms of sexual inclination without the fear of persecution or criminal prosecution.
Section 377 IPC, so far as it penalizes any consensual sexual relationship between two adults, be it homosexuals (man and a man), heterosexuals (man and a woman) or lesbians (woman and a woman), cannot be regarded as constitutional. However, if anyone, by which we mean both a man and a woman, engages in any kind of sexual activity with an animal, the said aspect of Section 377 is constitutional and it shall remain a penal offence under Section 377 IPC. Any act of the description covered under Section 377 IPC done between two individuals without the consent of any one of them would invite penal liability under Section 377 IPC.
This article is authored by Ashwini Arun, Associate, BananaIP Counsels.
 Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India And Ors, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012, Supreme Court of India.
 Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277.
 Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. versus Union of India thr Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016, Supreme Court of India.
 Suresh Kumar Koushal and Anr vs. Naz Foundation and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10972 OF 2013, Supreme Court of India.
 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, WP (Civil) No 604 of 2013, Supreme Court of India.
 Para 137, citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.