 |
Conclusion
The notion of equality in the Indian Constitution flows from
the ‘Objective Resolution’ moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
on December 13, 1946. Nehru, in his speech, moving this
Resolution wished that the House should consider the
Resolution not in a spirit of narrow legal wording, but rather
look at the spirit behind that Resolution. He said, ”Words are
magic things often enough, but even the magic of words
sometimes cannot convey the magic of the human spirit and
of a Nation’s passion…….. (The Resolution) seeks very
feebly to tell the world of what we have thought or dreamt
of so long, and what we now hope to achieve in the near
future.” [Constituent Assembly Debates: Lok Sabha
Secretariat, New Delhi: 1999, Vol. I, pages 57-65].
If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be
underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of
'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution
reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society,
nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that
Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every
aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for
everyone. Those perceived by the majority as “deviants' or
'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.
Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding,
such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and nondiscrimination.
This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of
which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian
Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law
to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the
LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis
of equality and that it is the recognition of equality
which will foster the dignity of every individual.
We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises
consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of
Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of
Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual
penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving
minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age
and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be
able to consent to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till,
of course, Parliament chooses to amend the law to
effectuate the recommendation of the Law Commission of
India in its 172nd Report which we believe removes a great
deal of confusion. Secondly, we clarify that our judgment
will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases involving
Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality.
We allow the writ petition in the above terms.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 2, 2009 S. MURALIDHAR, J
You can read the entire text of the judgement online at
http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/. To find the judgment you can
Click on Judgement date enter date as 2 July, 2009 and submit. On the page which opens subsequently, click on Case Number CW--7455/2001.
OR
Click on Case Number select W.P. (C) from drop down for Case type, enter 7455 in place provided for case number and select 2001 in year drop
down and submit. On the page which opens subsequently, click on Case Number CW--7455/2001. |
