1 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing deathThe right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:
11164 LL.B. (1 Sem.) Examination, Dec. 2015 LAW-IV I.P.C. (Law of Crimes) (K-1004) Time : Three Hours] [Maximum Marks : 100 Note : Attempt questions from all Sections as per instructions. Section-A (Very Short Answer Questions) Attempt all the five questions of this Section. Each question carries 4 marks. Very short answer is required not exceeding 75 words. 4×5-20 1. Define sedition. What is its punishment given in Indian Penel Code? 2. Differentiate in between riot and affray. 3. How can the gravious hurt be caused? Describe in brief. 4. Define criminal breach of trust. 4 5. Define abetment. How many ways it can be done? Section- B (Short Answer Questions) This Section contains three questions, attempt any two questions. Each question carries 10 marks. Short answer is required not exceeding 200 words. 10×2=20 6. Ignorence of law is no excuse but mistake of fact may be a good defence. Discuss by giving illustrations. 10 7. What are the offences against marriage? Distinguish between Section 493 and Section 497. 10 ![]() 8. Discuss the ,law relating to constructive criminality. 10 Section-C (Detailed Answer Questions) This Section contains five questions, attempt any three questions. Each question carries 20 marks. Answer is required in detail. 20×3-60 9. Define the word ‘Crime’ and explain the different stages of crime. 20 10. When a person is said to abet the doing of a thing? Who is an abettor? Also explain the criminal conspiracy. 20 11. What offence is committed in the following case? A with the intention of murdering Z instigate B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B is consequence of the abetment, does that act in absence of A and thereby causes Z’s death. What offence has committed by A? Discuss with relevant law. 20 12. What offence is committed in the following case? `A’ shakes his fist at ‘Z’ intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause ‘Z’ to believe that ‘A’ is about to strike ‘Z’. 20 13. Explain the terms ‘criminal misappropriation’ and ‘criminal breach of trust’ with illustrations. Also distinguish between them. 20 Hack:
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code refers to the colonial era legislation pertaining to 'Unnatural offenses' and serves as a law that criminalises sexual activities 'against the law of nature'. Considered as an archaic and regressive legislation, activist and members of the LGBT community have been fighting to strike down this anti-homosexuality legislation in courts ever since 2001. In January 2017, the Supreme Court's five-member bench decided to hear petitions to strike down Section 377 in a revisiting of its 2013 verdict of criminalising homosexuality through an upholding of Section 377. The five-member bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra commenced the hearing on 10 July 2018. What does Section 377 say?Section 377 of the IPC reads, ' Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.' While the law doesn't explicitly refer to LGBT, the very mentioning of 'against the order of nature' has come to be referred for same-gender sexual relations. Does Section 377 only pertain to homosexuals?Simply put, no. While the assumption is that Section 377 impacts only homosexuals, the law also allows the state to interfere on matters of heterosexual consensual sex as well. Given the fact that the implications of 'against the law of nature' in the Act include consensual sexual acts of oral and anal sex in private, the Section empowers the state to make private consensual acts between heterosexuals unlawful. Why do LGBT and human rights activists want Section 377 struck down?The fulcrum of the argument for anti-Section 377 activists is based upon the constitutionally enshrined principles of fundamental rights, equality and privacy. In previous petitions, activists have prayed to the top court to “declare the “Right to Sexuality,” “Right to Sexual Autonomy” and the “Right to Choice of a Sexual Partner” to be part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”. They have also prayed to the top court to “Declare Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to be unconstitutional”. Kp system astrology basically. READ | Here's Why Today's Supreme Court Hearing Is ImportantIs Section 377 against the Indian Constitution?Activists against Section 377 argue that the law is against teh Indian Constitution. While the matter is presently being heard in the Supreme Court of India, the argument to strike the law down is based upon multiple sections of the Indian Constitution. Article 5 of the constitution states that every person who “was born in the territory of India” shall be a citizen of India, the core argument of LGBT activists is about why their sexual orientation and choice of partner should make them outside the purview of fundamental rights which include Article 14 that states the “state shall not deny to ANY person equality before the law”. Therefore, the argument to strike it down is based upon the fact that the Indian state and Indian law is bound by the Indian constitution to not discriminate on the basis of gender. The fundamental right under Article 15, which places a “prohibition of discrimination” on the grounds of sex also adds weight to the argument that Section 377 is against the tenets of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, Article 21 of the Indian constitution which says “NO PERSON shall be deprived of his personal life or liberty” also pours into the narrative that a legislative agenda that targets homosexuals for what they do in their private lives may against what the Indian Constitution envisions. How Did Section 377 become a law?The environment surrounding which IPC Section 377 was born was 158 years ago in 1860 which itself speaks about the anachronism it has become in present times. While the British-era law was kept in the IPC even after independence, no political party has shown the boldness to move to strike it down and the only reasons could be based upon 'political' compulsions and losing out on a particular votebank. Where does Congress and BJP stand on Section 377?While the Congress has off-late been advocating for the striking down of Section 377, it is a matter of record that across the political and ideological spectrum politicians have refused to slice down the anti-LGBT law. During UPA I, the Centre sought more time to take a stand, but then the Dr. Manmohan Singh's government said that 'gay sex' is immoral vis-a-vis its arguments in court. At the time, the High Court in October 2008 pulled up the Centre for making a religion-based argument instead of a scientific one. The BJP, though, is yet to make its stand on the matter official. While there have been stray utterances by individuals, the Modi government has maintained a stoney silence on their official position on the matter. In February 2017, Jaitley spoke in support of abolishing Section 377 and said, 'Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalised consensual sex between gay adults'. However, contrastingly, then BJP President Rajnath singh in December 2013 months ahead of coming into power was quoted as to have said, “We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported” Where do the legal proceedings on Section 377 lie now?The matter is presently in Supreme Court, which has constituted a five member bench to hear a reconsideration of its December 2013 verdict that upheld the law. In fact, the three judge bench which decided on a larger bench to reconsider the validity of Section 377, while making its decision said, 'Earlier decision of the Supreme Court in 2013 requires to be reconsidered because of the constitutional issues involved and we think it appropriate to send this to a larger bench'. The anti- Section 377 movement gathered some steam in August 2017 when the Supreme Court upheld Right to Privacy as a fundamental rights for all Indians. The SC in the right to privacy verdict last year gave a boost to the possible decriminalisation of section 377 and said “ Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. ” On 8 January 2018, the Supreme Court then referred Section 377 to a larger bench of the court putting on record that its 2013 decision requires reconsideration. The recent timeline of Section 377In July 2009: The Delhi HC decriminalised homosexuality and held it as a violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. “We declare section 377 of Indian Penal Code in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 21,14,and 15 of the Constitution,” a Bench comprising then Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Murlidhar had said. In December 2012: The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order saying a “miniscule fraction of the country’s population constitute LGBT.” In January 2018: The top court vis-a-vis a petition filed in 2016 decided to refer the matter to a larger constitutional bench. In July 2018: The Supreme Court of India begins hearing on the petitions to strike down Section 377. In the case, there are as many as 35 individual petitioners who have come forward. Controversially, on the eve of the commencement of hearing, the Modi government had sought more time to make their stand clear but the five member bench led by CJI Dipak Misra refused to delay by saying that it was long pending. 'We will go ahead with the scheduled hearing. We will not adjourn it. You file whatever you want during the hearing', the CJI said. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is a section of the Indian Penal Code introduced in 1864 during the British rule of India. Modelled on the Buggery Act of 1533, it makes sexual activities 'against the order of nature' illegal. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual homosexual sex between adults was unconstitutional, 'irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary',[1] but that Section 377 remains in force relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts, and bestiality.[2] Portions of the section were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to gay sex by the Delhi High Court in July 2009.[3][4][5] That judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court of India (SC) on 11 December 2013 in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation. The Court held that amending or repealing section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.[6][7] On 6 February 2016, a three-member bench of the Court reviewed curative petitions submitted by the Naz Foundation and others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench.[8] On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution in the landmark Puttuswamy judgement. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the fundamental rights and that the rights of the LGBT population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.[9] This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377.[10][11][12] In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 Naz Foundation judgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India that Section 377 was unconstitutional 'in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex'.[13][14]
Text[edit]377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Dave and busters 19.99 special. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.[15][16] Public perception[edit]
Participant carrying a poster on Section 377 during Bhubaneswar Pride Parade
Support[edit]In 2008 Additional Solicitor General PP Malhotra said: 'Homosexuality is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. [Decriminalising homosexuality] may create [a] breach of peace. If it is allowed then [the] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society.' This view was shared by the Home Ministry.[17] 11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it 'the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other’s religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgement.'[18] The Daily News and Analysis article added that Baba Ramdev, India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not 'turn homosexual', stated he could 'cure' homosexuality through yoga and called it 'a bad addiction'. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad's vice-president Om Prakash Singhal said, 'This is a right decision, we welcome it. Homosexuality is against Indian culture, against nature and against science. We are regressing, going back to when we were almost like animals. The SC had protected our culture.' The article states that Singhal further went to dismiss HIV/AIDS concerns within the LGBT community as, 'It is understood that when you try to suppress one anomaly, there will be a break-out of a few more.' (Traditionally, Indian culture, or at least Hinduism, has been more ambivalent about homosexuality than Singhal suggests.)Maulana Madni of the Jamiat Ulema echoes this in the article, stating that 'Homosexuality is a crime according to scriptures and is unnatural. People cannot consider themselves to be exclusive of a society.. In a society, a family is made up of a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman, or a man and a man.' Rabbi Ezekiel Issac Malekar, honorary secretary of the Judah Hyam Synagogue, in upholding the judgment was also quoted as saying 'In Judaism, our scriptures do not permit homosexuality.' Reverend Paul Swarup of the Cathedral Church of the Redemption in Delhi in stating his views on what he believes to be the unnaturalness of homosexuality, stated 'Spiritually, human sexual relations are identified as those shared by a man and a woman. The Supreme Court’s view is an endorsement of our scriptures.' Opposition and criticism[edit]The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare opposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti-HIV/AIDS efforts[19][20]. According to the NCRB, in 2015, 1,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women.[21]Human Rights Watch also argues that the law has been used to harass HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, as well as sex workers, homosexuals, and other groups at risk of the disease,[22] even though those found guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that relate to Section 377 may face a life sentence under a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC.[23] The People's Union for Civil Liberties has published two reports of the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[24] and, in particular, transsexuals in India.[25] In 2006 it came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[26] most prominently Vikram Seth. The law subsequently came in for criticism from several ministers, most prominently Anbumani Ramadoss[27] and Oscar Fernandes.[28] In 2008, a judge of the Bombay High Court also called for the scrapping of the law.[29] The United Nations said that the ban violates international law. United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay stated that 'Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified', and that the decision 'represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights.', voicing hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure.[30] Views of political parties[edit]Support[edit]Rajnath Singh, a member of the ruling party BJP and the Home Minister, is on record shortly after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is 'unambiguously' in favour of the law, also claiming that 'We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported.”[31]Yogi Adityanath, BJP MP, Chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, endorsed Radev's comments, saying he welcomes the verdict and will 'oppose any move to decriminalise homosexuality.'[32] The Samajwadi Party made it clear that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality 'unethical and immoral.'[33]Ram Gopal Yadav stated that they support the Supreme Court decision as 'It is completely against the culture of our nation.'[32] The Congress party led UPA government also supported the law during the initial Naz Foundation case, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalised.[34] Bharatiya Janata Party leader Dr Subramanian Swamy said that homosexuality was not a normal thing and, in fact, against Hindutva. Swamy’s comment came ahead of the Supreme Court’s hearing of petitions against Section 377, The BJP leader went on to say that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. “It is not a normal thing. We cannot celebrate it, it's a danger to our national security' 'There is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll be a cover for pedophiles and a huge rise in HIV cases.' he said.[35] Opposition[edit]Finance Minister and BJP member Arun Jaitley has a different view from Rajnath Singh, saying that 'Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalised consensual sex between gay adults' and 'When millions of people the world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed.'.[36][37] BJP spokesperson Shaina NC said her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. 'We are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.'[38] In December 2013, Indian National Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi came out in support of LGBT rights and said that 'every individual had the right to choose'. He also said 'These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, freedom of expression. So let that be. I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement', he said. The LGBT rights movement in India was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections.[36] Senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister P Chidambaram expressed his disappointment, saying we have gone back in time and must quickly reverse the judgement.[32] He also said that 'Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck down or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement by Justice AP Shah.'[39] The RSS revised its position, the leader Dattatreya Hosabale reportedly saying, 'no criminalisation, but no glorification either.'[40] After the 2013 verdict, the Aam Aadmi Party put on their website: The Aam Aadmi party is disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Section 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the Delhi High Court on the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the police. This not only violates the human rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will also step in to repeal this archaic law.[36] Brinda Karat of the Communist Party said the SC order was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is wrong.[41] Shivanand Tiwari, leader of Janata Dal United, did not support the Supreme Court decision, calling homosexuality practical and constitutional. He added that 'This happens in society and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Court trying to stop them?'[32] Derek O'Brien of the Trinamool Congress said that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal world we live in today.[32] Legislative action[edit]On 18 December 2015, Lok Sabha member Shashi Tharoor of the Indian National Congress, whose leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi had earlier expressed support for LGBT Rights,[42] introduced a private member's bill to replace Section 377 in the Indian Penal Code and decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24.[43] For his part, Tharoor expressed surprise at the bill's rejection at this early stage. He said that he did not have time to rally support and that he will attempt to reintroduce the bill.[43] Web untuk download aplikasi. This performance improves with each version. There, click the Clear Browsing Databutton, and choose the time period and the type of data you want to delete. Exceptional performance and compatibility From a system perspective, with its V8 engine Google Chrome is at the top of the competition when it comes to comparative speed. When it comes to the Incognito mode, it's activated from the Tools menu or by pressing Control+Shift+N. You'll see how the window changes its appearance subtly to show that you're now browsing without saving data to your PC. In March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's bill to decriminalize homosexuality, but was voted down for the second time.[44] Judiciary action[edit]2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[edit]
The judgement of the High Court of Delhi of 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults
Ipc Law Video ClassesThe movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan in 1991. Their historic publication Less than Gay: A Citizen's Report, spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India' chronicles this early history. As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, an activist group, which filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[45] The Naz Foundation worked with a legal team from the Lawyers Collective to engage in court.[46] 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. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the Delhi High Court in the absence of a petitioner with standing. Naz Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court 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 PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit.[47] 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.[48] There was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with Navtej Singh Johar and drew from his personal experiences while protesting. Ritu Dalmia also demonstrated keen activism. Aman Nath, a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Section 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg passed away.[49] Ayesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent e-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out about her sexuality. Over time, she gained the courage to come out and challenge Section 377. [50] In May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the Delhi High Court, but the Government was undecided on its position, with The Ministry of Home Affairs maintaining a contradictory position to that of The Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to homosexuality.[51] On 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move.[52] On 12 June 2009, India's new law minister Veerappa Moily agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.[53] Eventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section,[54] legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults.[55] The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law. The two-judge bench went on to hold that:
The court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.[54] A batch of appeals were filed with the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court judgment. On 27 March 2012, the Supreme Court reserved verdict on these.[57] After initially opposing the judgement, the Attorney GeneralG. E. Vahanvati decided not to file any appeal against the Delhi High Court's verdict, stating, 'insofar as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private [before it was struck down by the High Court] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers.'[57] 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation[edit]![]() Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay[12] voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it “a significant step backwards” for the country. In the wake of Indian Supreme Court's ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief Ban Ki-moon[13] stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals.[14] Soon after the judgement, Sonia Gandhi, President of the then ruling Congress party, asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-President, Rahul Gandhi also wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights.[15] In July 2014, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju in the BJP led Central government told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a decision regarding Section 377 of IPC can be taken only after pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court.[16] However, on 13 January 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, appearing on NDTV, stated, 'We [BJP] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.'[17] 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition[edit]On 2 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the Naz Foundation and others came for hearing in the Supreme Court. The three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice of India T. S. Thakur said that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench.[8] 2017 Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India and Ors.[edit]On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a 'discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy.' In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, Justice Chandrachud (who authored for Justices Khehar, Agarwal, Abdul Nazeer and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. Justice Kaul agreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the Constitution of India.[9] Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.[9] However, as the curative petition (challenging Section 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts have suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the ground-work for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the High Court, thereby decriminalizing homosexual sex.[58][59] 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[edit]In 2018, the five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of chief justice Dipak Misra and justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, and Rohinton Fali Nariman started hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The Union Government did not take a position on the issue and left it to the 'wisdom of the court' to decide on Section 377. The petitioners invoked the right to sexual privacy, dignity, right against discrimination and freedom of expression to argue against the constitutionality of Section 377. After hearing the petitioners' plea for four days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018.[60] Announcing the verdict, the court reversed its own 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the IPC to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act.[61][62] In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law 'irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible.'[63] The Wire drew parallels between the supreme court's judgement and Privy Council’s 1929 verdict in Edwards vs Canada (AG) that allowed for Women to sit in the Senate of Canada. It compared the petitioners to the Canadian Famous Five.[64] Youtube American Indian Criminal LawDocumentary[edit]In 2011, italian film maker Adele Tulli, made 365 Without 377 which followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in Bombay celebrations.[65] It won the Turin LGBT Film Fest award in 2011.[66] See also[edit]References[edit]
External links[edit]Ipc India
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&oldid=898177072'
Comments are closed.
|