Arguments by councils

The arguments presented by the counsel in the Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Ministry of Law
case were focused on the violation of fundamental rights, including the right to equality and the
right to privacy.

They argued that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex
relationships, was discriminatory and infringed upon these rights.

The counsel emphasized the importance of recognizing and respecting the diversity of sexual
orientations in society.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed and struck down Section 377. It was a significant victory for
LGBTQ+ rights in India.

The main arguments against decriminalization in the Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Ministry
of Law case were based on societal norms and traditional beliefs.

Some argued that decriminalizing same-sex relationships would go against the cultural and religious
values of the country. They also expressed concerns about the potential impact on the institution of
marriage and the family structure.

However, the Supreme Court carefully considered these arguments and ultimately ruled in favour of
decriminalization, recognizing the importance of upholding fundamental rights and promoting
inclusivity.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Navtej Singh Johar and others):

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners argued that Section 377 violated various
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, including the right to equality,
right to privacy, right to dignity, and right to life and personal liberty. They contended that
criminalizing consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex amounted to
discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Impact on LGBTQ+ Community: The petitioners highlighted the adverse impact of Section
377 on the LGBTQ+ community, including stigmatization, discrimination, and harassment.
They argued that the provision contributed to the marginalization and exclusion of LGBTQ+
individuals from mainstream society, denying them equal citizenship rights.

3. International Jurisprudence: The petitioners cited international jurisprudence and

developments in other jurisdictions where similar laws had been repealed or struck down as
unconstitutional. They argued that India should align its legal framework with global
standards of human rights and equality.

4. Evolution of Constitutional Values: The petitioners emphasized the evolving nature of

constitutional values and the need for the judiciary to interpret the Constitution in a manner
that reflects contemporary social realities. They argued that societal attitudes towards
LGBTQ+ individuals had evolved over time, and the law should reflect this progression.

Arguments by the Respondent (Union of India, Ministry of Law):

1. Preservation of Social Morality: The respondents argued that Section 377 was essential for
preserving the moral fabric of society and upholding traditional Indian values. They
 contended that decriminalizing same-sex relations would undermine societal norms and
lead to moral degradation.

2. Public Health Concerns: The respondents raised public health concerns related to
decriminalization, particularly regarding the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
and HIV/AIDS. They argued that maintaining Section 377 was necessary to discourage
behaviors that could contribute to public health risks.

3. Legislative Competence: The respondents argued that the decision to repeal or amend
Section 377 should be left to the legislature rather than the judiciary. They contended that
the courts should not intervene in matters of policy and morality that fall within the domain
of the elected representatives.

4. Limited Scope of Constitutional Rights: The respondents emphasized a narrow

interpretation of constitutional rights, particularly with regard to privacy and personal
liberty. They argued that these rights should not extend to activities deemed immoral or
against the public interest.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of India, in a historic judgment delivered on September 6, 2018,
unanimously struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to the extent that it criminalized
consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex. The court's decision was hailed as a
significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights and marked a significant step towards equality and dignity for
all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation.