Aanchal Gorani, Symbiosis International University, Pune
INTRODUCTION
“The Supreme Court addresses the topics of sexuality of a person, sexual autonomy, and choice of sexual partner in its ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.”1 According to Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, a person's choice of sexual interest, autonomy, and sexuality are inborn and are all considered to be parts of their right to life. Additionally, the right to live with dignity is related to the right to sexual partner choice. Therefore, criminalizing sexual autonomy in same-sex partnerships is unlawful and at odds with the enjoyment of fundamental rights.
According to the Delhi High Court's ruling in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which targets homosexual people and adversely affects their enjoyment of their right to life, consensual sexual actions between adults must be removed from the purview of Section 377. As a result, this 2009 decision effectively decriminalized homosexuality. Despite the fact that it only has a limited impact and that the Parliament could repeal it. However, it is a landmark decision that will help put an end to the discrimination and unfair treatment of members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The three-judge bench recommended that the matter be brought before a bigger bench for discussion when this judgment was challenged in 2016. So, the case was debated in front of a five- judge court. A dancer who is a member of the LGBTQ community, Navtej Singh Johar was the petitioner in the 2018 ruling. He submitted a Writ Petition in 2016 demanding that Section 377 be ruled illegal. He also made an appeal for Section 21 of the Indian Constitution's support of sexual autonomy, sexual interest choice, and sexuality rights.
Opmerkingen