top of page

Analysis -: Abrogation of Article 377

Article by Aditya Choubey

Student of NMIMS School of Law, Bangalore


In this blog, I will discuss my opinion on the Judgment of scrapping Section 377 of IPC. Section 377 of IPC dealt with the unnatural sexuality activity among Man, woman, and animals shall be punishable. Scrapping of Sec. 377 is one of the major moves toward equality among different gender in India and I will give my commentary on this Judgment further. Nature gives us liberty and it has our fundamental right to live with dignity. So our Sexual activity among different gender is considered to be one of their privacy because we can’t eliminate them as different individuals. I analyze this judgment from the perspective of the LGBTQ community and observed it very deeply to point out the neutral theme in that. Liberty and Dignity is the very fundamental right of everyone.


Section 377 of IPC is included in the Indian Penal code in 1861. This Act has previously known as the Buggery act of 1533. This section stated that Sexual intercourse against the order of nature is illegal. Several petitions have been filed to remove this section from the IPC.

Sexual orientation is a natural thing and by the biological characteristics if someone faces any negativity so that is our mistake. We have the right to freedom and the right to live with dignity under Articles 19 and 21 respectively of the Constitution of India. Under Articles 19 and 21 we have a right to choose our partner and if there is anything that happened with mutual consent so why we punish them.

Our Ex CJI Deepak Mishra has scrapped some part of section 377 of IPC which has been dealing with the discrepancy since a long time back. LGBT community has expressed their joy with celebrating that moment happily. Before this judgment LGBT community has faced social discrimination and discrimination by society. People don’t want to accept them because of their sexual orientation. Everyone born on earth has a creation of god in itself. The right to choose our partner and the Right to live with our partner on mutual consent doesn’t amount to a crime.

In NAZ FOUNDATION vs UNION OF INDIA[i], a petition has been filed in Delhi high court that section 377 violates our fundamental right. Delhi court has ruled in the favour of NAZ FOUNDATION. But this judgment has again challenged the Supreme court, the final interpreter of our constitution and S.C reverses the order of the Delhi high court (Shah, n.d.).

But Supreme Court in its ruling gave Transgender as the third gender identity which was remarkable then. After that KS PUTTASWAMY (Lakshmi, n.d.) case was brought under consideration in the Supreme Court of India. The Court upheld that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under article 21 of the constitution of India. Right to privacy includes Personal intricacies, personal information, life, sexual orientation, and Dignity. That meant that Section 377 breached our fundamental right and make an impact on the mental health of LGBT and same-sex partners.

Our well-known and well-qualified judges of the supreme court took the right decision to scrap Section 377 which is very violative because if God doesn’t make any difference between Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender person then why we make this stereotype or follow that old tabu of our orthodox society.[ii]

After 118 years, the Supreme Court of India just as the whole scope of Indian ideological groups have shown their failure to get a handle on this. Bernstein had fastened, anyway inadequately, that heterosexism is established in hetero, man-centric family relations. Under industrialist conditions, the group of this sort is significant for the propagation of class divisions starting with one age then onto the next. It gives a modest and philosophically worthy component for replicating human work. This includes utilizing neglected and overwhelmingly female work in the family to really focus on the youthful, the old, just as for the male working grown-up. Monogamous, hetero love as an impulse is a focal part of the family framework as it exists. The state and its laws, the clinical and mental foundations, a large part of the instructive framework, are completely custom fitted to elevate procreative heterosexuality and to disparage and smother different types of sexuality, regularly depicted as strange, unreliable, or clinical cases.[iii]

The court likewise dismisses the cases that Article 377 prompts infringement of the privilege to protection, the option to real honesty and sexual decision, and the option to live with poise. The cases referred to by the court have been amazingly befuddled. Obviously, the ladies' development has since a long time ago gone against specific employments of the contention of security, for instance, when it is utilized to conceal the assault of a spouse by a husband. Yet, that isn't the worry of the Supreme Court. Disregarding the way that what was under the scanner was consensual sex between two grown-ups, the Supreme Court referred to a situation where a specialist had uncovered the HIV-positive nature of his patient to her life partner. All things considered, it had been effectively held that protection was subordinate to one side of wellbeing and opportunity of others. Yet, changing the extent of Article 377 to eliminate consenting grown-ups from its domain doesn't go under this head. Indeed, if two consenting grown-ups have any sort of sexual relations, whose wellbeing and opportunity are contrarily influenced?

The methodology of over-dependence on the legal executive can some of the time be counter-beneficial. To refer to two milestone cases, the Supreme Court didn't come out with a rights viewpoint for the marginals. It had dismissed the Narmada BachaoAndolan supplication and had absolved the blamed in the Mathura Rape Case.[iv]

In the event that we center around the first class, on the off chance that we center around generously compensated attorneys contending in courts, we can't anticipate that a wider discourse of rights should be enunciated or regarded. To depend on NGOs, the campaign, can't go far when essential social issues are included. What's more, toward the start of this article that is the thing that we contend. Decriminalize and perceive the equity of same-sex relations is unfavorable to the major interests of the decision first class. Lesbian/gay freedom is important for a more extensive, human freedom we are battling for. We can't battle for full rights for LGBTs and figure that we don't have to battle for the quick rejecting of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. Significantly nearer to the local area itself, the "strange development" of the subcontinent needs to take a gander at the queers who are poor, who are not from the upper positions, who are non-metropolitan. To get rights one needs to battle for rights, not simply anteroom for rights. Campaigning can get little benefits for little sections. Full balance can't be acquired by some other means than mass battles. It is when there are mass battles that courts and lawmaking bodies have demonstrated that they will be positive. This isn't a call for dismissing court fights, yet a call to perceive that on the off chance that we need, not slight increases for little areas of LGBTs, yet full correspondence, at that point we need to battle for it.

One should be thankful for the Supreme Court in any case, for it has constrained out of the shadows the issue of LGBTs.

However, what might be said about the two-timers in the standard gatherings who are today unexpectedly worried about LGBT rights? Much computation goes into their positions. The Congress party has today proclaimed it will bring enactment or push for the statute. Where was it every one of these years, particularly in periods when it appreciated agreeable parliamentary dominant parts? Plainly, in the best-case scenario, the nonconformists on the privilege needed to allow the courts to choose. To take up the reason for elective sexualities gambled losing votes, which they were not quick to do.

In the interim, the Delhi races have shown that the more youthful age and the working class by and large have wiped the Congress out. So this is an urgent motion to attempt to recapture some help. Simultaneously, it is a serious safe motion. The public authority will either go after a "healing request" (i.e., again ask the Supreme Court) or ask parliament, an exceptionally protected choice since in the current parliament the bill can't be passed through with a gathering whip, as insufficient gatherings are transparently for the decriminalization of elective sexualities so the congress gets left-liberal endorsement without threatening its other potential electors to an extreme.

The ladies' privileges development has likewise not generally treated up LGBT rights adequately appropriately or in an adequately focal way. One can consider minutes when one has seen LGBT associations obviously bothered by the hesitance of the areas of the ladies' developments one has taken part in, to forefront LGBT rights.

What's more, the LGBT development, similarly, needs to perceive that political rights and common freedoms are in reality unbreakable. On the off chance that we battle for common and political rights, we can't bear to be sectoral. One can't say that one is supporting the privileges of individuals of Manipur however not somebody blamed for being a Maoist. In like manner, one can't want rights for LGBTs yet say that one is uninterested in the privileges of others. It is by building well-known collusions, by dispatching people groups' battles, that we can win. Furthermore, we can't battle simply on the landscape of courts.[v]

I liked the judgment of a good high court of India, which gave the equivalent and honorable existence of our LGBT people group and ensure that each regards their privilege and attempting to include them in the general public.[vi]

[i] 160 Delhi Law Times 277. [ii] Geetanjali Misra, “Decriminalising Homosexuality in India”, Reproductive Health Matters , Vol. 17, 2009, Criminalisation (November 2009), pp. 20-28. [iii] Ibid. [iv] 1979 SCR (1) 810. [v] Ritansha Lakshmi, Case Summary: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, 2017, [vi] Ibid.

51 views0 comments


bottom of page