Ajay Kumar: Created a new article

2023-08-27T09:46:09Z

Created a new article

New page

{{Short description|Indian LGBT Rights Case Law}}
{{Use Indian English|date=September 2018}}
{{use dmy dates|date=September 2018}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
| court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
| image =
| imagesize =
| imagelink =
| imagealt =
| caption =
| full name = Navtej Singh Johar {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}} versus Union of India {{abbr|thr.|through}} Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice
| date decided = 6 September 2018
| citations = AIR 2018 SC 4321; {{URL|1=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf|2={{Abbr|W. P. (Crl.) No.|Writ Petition (Criminal) Number}} 76 of 2016}}<br />{{Abbr|D. No.|Diary Number}} 14961/2016
| Plurality = [[Dipak Misra]]
| JoinPlurality = [[Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar|A. M. Khanwilkar]]
| Concurrence = [[Rohinton Fali Nariman]], [[Indu Malhotra]], [[D. Y. Chandrachud]]
| ECLI =
| transcripts =
| judges = [[Dipak Misra]], {{Abbr|CJI|Chief Justice of India}}; [[Rohinton Fali Nariman]], {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}; [[Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar|A. M. Khanwilkar]], J; [[D. Y. Chandrachud]], J; and [[Indu Malhotra]], J
| number of judges = 5
| decision by = [[Dipak Misra]], [[Rohinton Fali Nariman|R. F. Nariman]], [[D. Y. Chandrachud]] and [[Indu Malhotra]]
| concurring =
| dissenting =
| concur/dissent =
| prior actions = [[Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation]]
| Overturned previous case = ''[[Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation]]'' by [[Supreme Court of India]]
| appealed to =
| subsequent actions =
| related actions =
| opinions = The Court decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.
| keywords = [[Criminalization of homosexuality|Criminalization of Homosexuality]], [[Sexual orientation discrimination|Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation]]
| italic title =
}}

'''''Navtej Singh Johar {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}} v. Union of India {{Abbr|thr.|through}} Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice''''' (2018) is a [[List of landmark court decisions in India|landmark decision]] of the [[Supreme Court of India]] that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.<ref name="SCI2018-09-06-conclusion01a">{{Cite court|litigants=Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|pinpoint=W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016|url=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf|quote=21. CONCLUSION i. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion.}}</ref>

The court was asked to determine the constitutionality of [[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code]], a [[British Raj|colonial-era]] law which, among other things, criminalised homosexual acts as an "unnatural offence". While the statute criminalises all [[anal sex]] and [[oral sex]], including between opposite-sex couples, it largely affected same-sex relationships.<ref name=":0" /> On 6 September 2018, the court unanimously declared the law unconstitutional "in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/indian-supreme-court-decriminalises-homosexuality|title=Campaigners celebrate as India decriminalises homosexuality|last=Safi|first=Michael|date=2018-09-06|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|language=en|access-date=2018-09-07}}</ref> The verdict was hailed as a landmark decision for [[LGBT rights in India]], with campaigners waiting outside the court cheering after the verdict was pronounced.<ref name=":0" />

Elements of Section 377 relating to sex with [[Minor (law)|minors]], [[Sexual consent|non-consensual]] sexual acts such as [[rape]], and [[bestiality]] remain in force.<ref name="pundir">{{cite web |last1=Pundir |first1=Pallavi |title=I Am What I Am. Take Me as I Am |url=https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/7xq5yd/i-am-what-i-am-take-me-as-i-am |website=[[Vice News]] |date=6 September 2018 |access-date=8 September 2018}}</ref>

== Background ==
On 27 April 2016, five people filed a new [[writ]] [[petition]] in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of [[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code]]. The petitioners claimed that the issues which they raised in their petition were varied and diverse from those raised in the pending curative petition in the 2013 ''[[Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation|Koushal v. Naz]]'' case, in which the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of Section 377. The ''Naz'' had been earlier referred to a five-judge bench in order to decide whether the curative petition could be accepted for consideration. The petitioners were dancer [[Navtej Johar|Navtej Singh Johar]], journalist Sunil Mehra, chef [[Ritu Dalmia]], hoteliers [[Aman Nath]] and Keshav Suri, and businesswoman Ayesha Kapur.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/section-377-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-decriminalisation-of-homosexuality-5342203/?#liveblogstart|title=Gay sex decriminalised: History owes apology to LGBT community and kin, says Supreme Court|date=September 6, 2018|work=[[The Indian Express]]|access-date=September 6, 2018|publisher=[[Indian Express Group]]|others=Express Web Desk|publication-place=[[New Delhi]]|oclc=70274541}}</ref> This case was the first instance wherein the petitioners argued that they had all been directly aggrieved because of Section 377, alleging it to be a direct violation of [[Fundamental rights in India|fundamental rights]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.legallyindia.com/supreme-court/read-the-wonderful-new-377-challenge-by-5-out-and-proud-celebrities-that-ll-hit-sc-today-20160628-7762|title=Read the wonderful new 377 challenge by 5 out-and-proud celebrities that'll hit SC today|last=Ganz|first=Kian|website=Legallyindia.com|language=en-gb|access-date=15 January 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://orinam.net/377/navtej-johar-vs-uoi-petition/|title=Navtej Singh Johar & ors. vs. UoI: Supreme Court petition 29 June 2016 – Orinam Section 377|date=29 June 2016|work=Orinam Section 377|access-date=15 January 2018|language=en-US}}</ref> The opposition to decriminalisation petitions was led by Apostolic Alliance of Churches, Utkal Christian Council and Trust God Ministries. Advocate Manoj George represented the first two and Senior Advocate KS Radhakrishnan the third. The [[National Democratic Alliance|NDA]] government took a neutral stance, leaving the decision to the "wisdom of the court" as long as it applies to "consensual acts of adults in private".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/who-argued-what-in-challenge-against-section-377|title=Who Argued What In Challenge Against Section 377|work=[[BloombergQuint]]|author=Arpan Chaturvedi}}</ref>

==Trial==
The petition was first placed before the former [[Chief Justice of India]] Justice [[T. S. Thakur|T.S. Thakur]], Justice [[Sharad Arvind Bobde|S. A. Bobde]] and Justice [[Ashok Bhushan|A. K. Bhushan]] on 29 June 2016. An order was passed to post the matter before [[Dipak Misra|Justice Dipak Misra]] for appropriate orders since a curative petition was already pending before the [[Constitution Bench (India)|constitution bench]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-refers-fresh-petition-on-homosexuality-to-cji-bench-2862080.html|title=Section 377: Supreme Court refers fresh petition on homosexuality to CJI|date=29 June 2016|access-date=6 September 2018|work=Firstpost|author=FP Staff}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/courtnic/rop/2016/14961/rop_688268.pdf|title=Supreme Court Order - Navtej Johar vs Union of India - 29 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180115185623/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/courtnic/rop/2016/14961/rop_688268.pdf|archive-date=15 January 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> On 8 January 2018, the case (''Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India'') was listed to be heard by the [[Chief Justice of India|Chief Justice's]] bench, which passed an order stating that the case would be heard by a constitution bench.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/section-377-all-you-need-to-know-1797355|title=Section 377: All you need to know|work=[[NDTV|New Delhi Television Limited]]|date=8 January 2018|access-date=6 September 2018|first=Richa|last=Taneja}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-section-377-supreme-court-judgment-all-you-need-to-know-a-timeline-of-what-has-happened-so-far-in-the-case-461743|title=Section 377 verdict: What has happened so far in the case|work=[[India TV]]|date=6 September 2018|access-date=6 September 2018|author=India TV News Desk}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Order_08-Jan-2018.pdf|title=Supreme Court Order - Navtej Johar vs Union of India - 8 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180115185611/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Order_08-Jan-2018.pdf|archive-date=15 January 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The matter was heard from 17 January 2018 by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.livelaw.in/want-know-8-cases-listed-hearing-constitution-bench-wednesday-jan-17-read-notice/|title=All You Want To Know About 8 Cases Listed For Hearing By Constitution Bench From Wednesday (17 Jan) [Read Notice] {{!}} Live Law|date=15 January 2018|work=Live Law|access-date=15 January 2018|language=en-US}}</ref> On 10 July 2018, the SC commenced hearing of the pleas challenging the constitutionality of section 377.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/sc-to-hear-pleas-to-scrap-section-377/article24375447.ece|title=SC to hear pleas to scrap Section 377|last1=Correspondent|first1=Legal|date=10 July 2018|work=The Hindu|access-date=10 July 2018|last2=Correspondent|first2=Legal|language=en-IN|issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://barandbench.com/section-377-hearing-live-updates-supreme-court/|title=Section 377 hearing: Live Updates from the Supreme Court|last=Bench|first=Bar &|date=10 July 2018|work=Bar & Bench|access-date=10 July 2018|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://clpr.org.in/fall-sec-377-will-embolden-lgbtq-people-cji/|title=Fall of Sec. 377 will embolden LGBTQ people: CJI|website=Clpr.org.in}}</ref> The bench ended its hearing on 17 July and reserved its verdict, asking for both sides to submit written submissions for their claims by 20 July.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/marathon-hearing-section-377-concludes-sc-reserves-verdict-84913|title=Marathon hearing on Section 377 concludes, SC reserves verdict|date=17 July 2018|access-date=6 September 2018|work=[[The News Minute]]|author=TNM Staff}}</ref>

== Judgment ==
[[File:Section 377 - Supreme Court of India - WP(C) NO. 76 OF 2016 Judgement 06-Sep-2018.pdf|thumb|upright|The judgement of the [[Supreme Court of India]] of 6 September 2018 overturning its own verdict in ''[[Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation]]'' hence declaring all private consensual sexual acts between adults legal including homosexual ones.]]
On 6 September 2018, the court delivered its unanimous verdict, declaring portions of the law relating to consensual sexual acts between adults unconstitutional.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45429664|title=Historic India ruling legalises gay sex|date=6 September 2018|work=BBC News|access-date=6 September 2018|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name="Gettleman">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/world/asia/india-gay-sex-377.html|title=India Strikes Down Colonial-Era Law Against Gay Sex|last1=Gettleman|first1=Jeffrey|date=6 September 2018|work=The New York Times|access-date=6 September 2018|last2=Schultz|first2=Kai|language=en}}</ref> The Bench unanimously found that the criminalisation of sexual acts between consenting adults to be violation of the Article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]].<ref name=":1" />

This decision overturns the 2013 ruling in ''[[Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation]]'' in which the court upheld the law.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/indien-homosexualitaet-legal-1.4118910|title=Homosexualität ist in Indien nicht mehr strafbar|date=6 September 2018|work=sueddeutsche.de|access-date=6 September 2018|language=de|issn=0174-4917}}</ref> However, other portions of Section 377 relating to sex with [[Minor (law)|minors]], [[Sexual consent|non-consensual]] sexual acts, and [[bestiality]] remain in force.<ref name="pundir" />

While reading the judgment, the then Chief Justice of India [[Dipak Misra]] pronounced that the court found "criminalising carnal intercourse" to be "irrational, arbitrary and manifestly unconstitutional".<ref name=":0" /> The court ruled that [[LGBT]] people in India are entitled to all constitutional rights, including the liberties protected by the [[Constitution of India]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite court|litigants=Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|pinpoint=W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016|url=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf}}</ref> It held that "the choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation".<ref name=":1" /> "History owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries. The members of this community were compelled to live a life full of fear of reprisal and persecution. This was on account of the ignorance of the majority to recognise that homosexuality is a completely natural condition, part of a range of human sexuality." said [[Indu Malhotra|Hon'ble Justice Indu Malhotra]]. The judgement also made note that LGBT community is entitled to equal citizenship and protection under law, without discrimination.<ref name=":1" />

== {{Anchor|Political parties}}Public opinion and specific reactions ==
The [[Government of India]] decided to abstain from the hearings and had left the matter to the "[w]isdom of the [c]ourt".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/section-377-supreme-court-hearing-centre-defers-to-wisdom-of-court-menaka-guruswamy-says-ipc-section-violates-article-15-4713811.html|title=Section 377 Supreme Court hearing: Centre defers to 'wisdom of court'; Menaka Guruswamy says IPC section violates Article 15|website=Firstpost.com|date=11 July 2018 |access-date=2018-09-08}}</ref>

=== Political parties and organisations ===
The largest constituent party of the [[National Democratic Alliance (India)|National Democratic Alliance]], a right-wing coalition, currently having a majority in the [[Lok Sabha]] (House of the People), the [[Bharatiya Janata Party]] (BJP), was one of the few parties which officially stayed silent on the verdict.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/09/06/section-377-bjp-has-nothing-to-say-about-supreme-courts-verdict-legalizing-gay-sex_a_23518802/|title=Section 377: BJP Has Nothing To Say About Supreme Court's Historic Verdict Legalizing Gay Sex|date=2018-09-06|work=HuffPost India|access-date=2018-09-08|language=en-IN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.deccanherald.com/national/bjp-mum-sc-verdict-section-377-691575.html|title=BJP mum on SC verdict on Section 377|date=2018-09-07|work=Deccan Herald|access-date=2018-09-08|language=en}}</ref> Several party members did express their personal opinions on the subject, including the BJP spokesperson [[G. V. L. Narasimha Rao]], who said that any decision on the matter "takes in sync with the jurisprudential developments on gay rights the world over would be welcome".<ref name="auto">{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/political-parties-welcome-sc-ruling-on-homosexuality/article22397791.ece|title=Ruling and Opposition parties on the same side against Section 377|date=2018-01-08|work=The Hindu|access-date=2018-09-10|language=en-IN|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> Meanwhile, [[Subramanian Swamy]], a [[Rajya Sabha]] (Council of the States) [[Member of parliament, Rajya Sabha|member]] of the BJP, attacked the decision, questioning if the court will legalise sexual intercourse with animals in the name of personal liberty.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/1037615997656555520|title=Subramanian Swamy on Twitter|work=Twitter|access-date=2018-09-08|language=en}}</ref> He was of the view that the decision could be overruled "[i]f it leads to excesses, including paedophilia, gay bars, increase in HIV cases, etc."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/section-377-verdict-rss-says-same-sex-relations-against-nature-subramanian-swamy-milli-gazette-take-more-assertive-stand-5129801.html|title='Step towards self-destruction': Far-right comes out against Supreme Court's Section 377 verdict|website=Firstpost.com|date=6 September 2018 |access-date=2018-09-08}}</ref> The [[Prime Minister of India]], [[Narendra Modi]], has a record of saying relatively little about LGBT rights compared to other socio-political issues, and refused to comment on the same.<ref name="Gettleman" />

The right-wing organisation [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] conveyed its agreement with the court's verdict as it didn't believe homosexuality was a crime, but did label the orientation as "unnatural".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/homosexuality-not-a-crime-but-unnatural-rss/articleshow/65703402.cms|title=Homosexuality not a crime, but unnatural: RSS|work=The Times of India|access-date=2018-09-08}}</ref> In January 2018, the BJP's coalition partner, the [[Shiv Sena]] had supported legalisation, with its member and a [[Member of parliament, Lok Sabha|member of parliament]] in [[Lok Sabha]] for [[Mumbai South (Lok Sabha constituency)|Mumbai South]], [[Arvind Sawant|Arvind Sawant Ganpat]] saying, "They have the right to live the way they want. What can we say on it."<ref name="auto" />

The largest [[Official Opposition (India)|opposition party]] in India, the [[Indian National Congress]] of the [[United Progressive Alliance]], issued a statement welcoming the ruling. The organisation remarked that the judgement should bring about "the beginning of a more equal and inclusive society".<ref name=":0" /> This was in contrast to its previous objection in the same case in 2009 when it was in government during the initial Naz Foundation case, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalised.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc/613434|title=Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC|website=Outlookindia.com|access-date=14 September 2018}}</ref>

===Overseas===
In terms of [[non-governmental organisation]]s, the group [[Human Rights Watch]] welcomed what happened, with its South Asia director labelling the judgement as "hugely significant".<ref name="Gettleman" /> [[Amnesty International]] also praised the ruling.<ref name="Amnesty">{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/india-supreme-courts-decriminalising-gay-sex-represents-new-era-equality|title=India decriminalises gay sex|website=Amnesty.org.uk}}</ref> The [[United Nations]] welcomed the judgement, hoping that it will be the first step towards guaranteeing the full range of fundamental rights to [[LGBTI]] persons.<ref name="UN">{{Cite news|url=http://in.one.un.org/un-news/united-nations-india-welcomes-supreme-court-judgment-striking-section-377/|title=United Nations in India welcomes Supreme Court judgment on Section 377|work=UN India|access-date=2018-09-08|language=en-US}}</ref>

[[Global News]] suggested that similar colonial laws in South Asia, modelled on India's Section 377, could be declared unconstitutional following this verdict. The agency stated that the ruling "emboldened activists in neighbouring countries".<ref name="Global"/> In terms of [[LGBT rights in Sri Lanka]], a similar law in that nation, which has not been enforced in decades, was declared unenforceable by its Supreme Court and is effectively dormant. However, differences in how constitutional matters are handled mean that the law cannot be removed without the consent of the electorate.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/SL-committed-to-non-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation-Nerin-Pulle-140616.html|title=SL committed to non-discrimination based on sexual orientation: Nerin Pulle|website=Dailymirror.lk|access-date=14 September 2018}}</ref><ref name="Global"/> Global News also noted that the nations of Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Pakistan face problems with LGBT people suffering from public discrimination, outside of the context of laws restricting homosexuality.<ref name="Global">{{Cite news|url=http://globalnews.ca/news/4430721/india-gay-sex-supreme-court-pakistan-bangladesh/|title=India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't|work=Global News|access-date=2018-09-10|language=en}}</ref>

[[Simon Chesterman]], dean of the [[National University of Singapore Faculty of Law]], congratulated India on the verdict in a [[Facebook]] post. In response to Chesterman's post, Singaporean diplomat [[Tommy Koh]] wrote on [[Facebook]] that Singaporean LGBT activists should take the opportunity to overturn [[Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)|Section 377A of the Penal Code]],<ref>{{cite news|date=7 September 2018|title=Inspired by India, veteran Singapore diplomat calls for gays to challenge sex ban|url=https://www.nst.com.my/world/2018/09/409289/inspired-india-veteran-singapore-diplomat-calls-gays-challenge-sex-ban|agency=[[Reuters]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180913040115/https://www.nst.com.my/world/2018/09/409289/inspired-india-veteran-singapore-diplomat-calls-gays-challenge-sex-ban|archive-date=2018-09-13}}</ref> a position supported by Chief of Government Communications [[Janadas Devan]]. Later, on September 10, disc jockey and producer Johnson Ong Ming filed a lawsuit in court against Section 377A.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.firstpost.com/world/after-section-377-verdict-in-india-singapore-dj-files-court-challenge-against-law-banning-gay-sex-5170321.html|title=After Section 377 verdict in India, Singapore DJ files court challenge against law banning gay sex|website=Firstpost.com|date=12 September 2018 |access-date=14 September 2018}}</ref> However, Law and Home Affairs Minister [[K. Shanmugam]] stated that “[t]his issue relates to social mores, values - so can you impose viewpoints on a majority when it so closely relates to a social value system?”<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-gay-sex-law-377a-shanmugam-society-has-to-decide-10693926|title=Singapore society has to decide which direction it wants to take on laws against gay sex: Shanmugam|website=Channelnewsasia.com|access-date=14 September 2018}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[LGBT rights in India]]
* [[List of landmark court decisions in India]]
* [[S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police|S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police (2021)]]
*[[Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha|Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha (2020)]]
*[[Right to Privacy verdict|Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union Of India (2017)]]

===Similar Foreign Cases===
* ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]''
* ''[[Jason Jones (activist)#Jones v Trinidad and Tobago|Jones v. Trinidad and Tobago]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite journal |last1=McGoldrick |first1=Dominic |title=Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India |journal=Human Rights Law Review |date=2019 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=173–185 |doi=10.1093/hrlr/ngy041}}

==External links==
*{{Cite court|litigants=Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|pinpoint=W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016|url=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf}}
*{{Cite court|litigants=NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|pinpoint=[2018] INSC 746 (6 September 2018)|url=http://www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/2018/746.html}}
{{LGBT Rights Case Law in India|state=expanded}}{{LGBT in India|state=collapsed}}

[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases]]
[[Category:LGBT rights in India]]
[[Category:2018 in case law]]
[[Category:Indian LGBT rights case law]]
[[Category:2018 in Indian law]]
[[Category:2018 in LGBT history]]

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India - Revision history

Ajay Kumar: Created a new article