WEST BENGAL STATE UNIVERSITY

KINGSTON LAW COLLEGE

(A UNIT OF KINGSTON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE)

SUPREME COURT VISIT REPORT

[UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: - ASSISTANT PROFESSOR TANYA
ADHIKARY]
SUBMITTED BY
NAME: - RIYA AICH
UNIVERSITY ROLL NO.: - 30319011470107
UNIVERSITY REGISTARTION NO.: - 3031921600107 OF 2019
COLLEGE ROLL NO.: - 19/KLC-BA-LLB/120
COURSE NAME:- BA-LLB (5 YEARS), 10TH SEMESTER
NAME OF COLLEGE: - KINGSTON LAW COLLEGE
SESSION: - 2019-2024

1|Page
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that, RIYA AICH, being a student of 5 years BA-LLB of 10th
Sem, bearing the College Roll No.- 19/KLC-BA-LLB/120, Registration
No. 3031921600107 OF 2019, under WEST BENGAL STATE
UNIVERSITY, have been done this project under the guidance of Assistant Professor
Tanya Adhikary (Madam) to fulfillment of 5 years BA-LLB degree (2019-2024).

Place: Kolkata
Date:

___________________________
Tanya Adhikary
Assistant Professor of KLC
[Kingston Law College]

2|Page
 DECLARATION
I, RIYA AICH, being a student of 5 years BA-LLB (10th Sem), Roll No-
19/KLC-BA-LLB/120, in KLC, hereby declare that this project made by
me and it has been submitted for my examination in fulfillment, which I
need for my university degree.

_____________________
RIYA AICH

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks to my mentor Prof. Tanya Adhikary as well
as to the principal who gave me the golden opportunity to do this Supreme Court
visit project. On the subject “Civil Related Appeals, Criminal Related Appeals,
Matrimonial suits, Writ petition” which also helped me on doing a lot of Court
Visit and Case Studies and I came to know about so many new things and incidents
occurring in recent Case law.

I am really thankful to Faculties and also my parents and friends who helped me to
complete this project work within the prescribed time as declared by the university.

At last my sincere thanks to good and all of those other people who helped me to
complete this project work.

_____________________
RIYA AICH

4|Page
 ABBREVIATION

% Percentage
& And
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
CRC Convention of the Rights of the Child
F.I.R First Information Report
Govt. Government
Hon'ble Honourable
i.e. That is
JJ Juvenile Justice
LR Law Report
Ltd. Limited
N.C.T National Capital Territory
NCRB National Crime Report Bureau
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Supp. Supplementary Volume
U.O.I. Union of India
v. Versus

5|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT

SL. PAGE
NO. TOPIC NAME NUMBER
1 PURPOSE OF SUPREME COURT VISIT
2 OUTCOME OF SUPREME COURT VISIT
3 Case Analysis
WP(CIVIL) NOS. 1034 and 1164 of 2019
WP (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016
4 CIVIL CASES-
4.1 C.O. 68 of 2015
4.2 CASE NO: Appeal (civil) 10074-10075 of 2003
4.3
5 MATRIMONIAL CASES
5.1 F.A.155 of 2005
6 CRIMINAL CASES-
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4

6|Page
 PURPOSE OF SUPREME COURT VISIT
The purpose of this court visit was to gain practical insights and firsthand experience
of the judicial process, complementing my theoretical knowledge acquired during my
law studies at Kingston Law College. Observing the court proceedings provided a
deeper understanding of legal principles, courtroom dynamics, and the roles of
various legal professionals. This visit aimed to enhance my analytical and practical
skills, contributing significantly to my overall legal education and professional
development.

7|Page
 OUTCOME OF SUPREME COURT VISIT
The court visit provided invaluable practical exposure to the judicial process,
enhancing my understanding of courtroom procedures and legal principles. Observing
real cases and interacting with legal professionals enriched my theoretical knowledge
and improved my analytical skills, reinforcing my commitment to a career in law.

8|Page
 HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT
Pre-Independence Era

1. Establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William: The first step
towards a centralized judicial system in India was taken in 1774 with the
establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta (now
Kolkata) by the Regulating Act of 1773. This court had jurisdiction over civil,
criminal, admiralty, and ecclesiastical cases.
2. Formation of High Courts: In 1861, the Indian High Courts Act was passed, leading
to the establishment of High Courts in Calcutta, Bombay (now Mumbai), and Madras
(now Chennai). These High Courts replaced the Supreme Courts of Judicature and
Sadar Adalats (highest courts of appeal in civil and criminal cases) that existed in
these presidencies.

Post-Independence Era

1. Constitutional Provisions:
o The Government of India Act 1935 proposed the establishment of a Federal Court,
which came into existence in 1937. However, the Federal Court had limited jurisdiction
and its role was primarily advisory.
2. Establishment of the Supreme Court of India:
o With India's independence in 1947, the need for a Supreme Court was recognized.
The Supreme Court of India was established on January 28, 1950, two days after the
Constitution of India came into effect on January 26, 1950.
o The inaugural ceremony took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament
building, where the Federal Court of India previously held its sessions. The Supreme
Court initially comprised a Chief Justice and seven other judges.
3. Early Years and Development:
o The Supreme Court functioned from the Parliament House until 1958 when it moved
to its present building. The court has gradually expanded in terms of the number of judges
and its jurisdiction.
4. Expansion of Jurisdiction:

9|Page
 o The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has expanded over the years through
constitutional amendments and judicial pronouncements. It now has extensive original,
appellate, and advisory jurisdiction.
5. Significant Cases and Judicial Activism:
o Over the decades, the Supreme Court has played a crucial role in shaping the legal
and political landscape of India. Landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala (1973) established the basic structure doctrine, asserting that the basic structure of
the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.
o The court has also been known for its judicial activism, especially in the realm of
public interest litigation (PIL). This has enabled the court to address various social issues
and uphold the rights of marginalized sections of society.
6. Modern Era and Technological Advancements:
o In recent years, the Supreme Court has embraced technology to enhance its
functioning. E-filing, video conferencing for hearings, and digital case management
systems have been introduced to make the judicial process more efficient and accessible.
o The court has also played a pivotal role in upholding the principles of democracy, rule
of law, and protection of fundamental rights through its judgments.

Structure and Functioning

1. Composition: The Supreme Court currently comprises the Chief Justice of India and a
maximum of 33 other judges, as prescribed by the Constitution.

2. Jurisdiction:
• Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases
involving disputes between the Government of India and one or more states or
between two or more states.
• Appellate Jurisdiction: It hears appeals against judgments of High Courts,
lower courts, and tribunals in civil, criminal, and constitutional matters.
• Advisory Jurisdiction: The President of India can seek the Supreme Court's
opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Supreme Court's role in PIL has been
transformative, allowing any individual or organization to file a petition on behalf of

10 | P a g e
 those whose rights are being violated, even if the petitioner is not directly affected by
the issue.

Legacy and Impact

1. Guardian of the Constitution:

The Supreme Court of India is often referred to as the guardian of the Indian Constitution.
Its role in interpreting and upholding the Constitution has been fundamental in ensuring the
rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.

2. Social Justice and Reforms:

Through its progressive judgments, the Supreme Court has contributed significantly to social
justice and legal reforms in India. Cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which
laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, and Navtej Singh Johar v.
Union of India (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality, reflect the court's commitment
to social change.

3. Challenges and Criticisms:

Despite its pivotal role, the Supreme Court has faced challenges such as backlog of cases,
allegations of judicial overreach, and the need for judicial accountability. Continuous efforts
are being made to address these issues and strengthen the judiciary.

The Supreme Court of India has evolved from its inception to become a cornerstone of
Indian democracy. Its history reflects a journey of growth, adaptation, and a relentless
pursuit of justice for all.

11 | P a g e
3.1 Report on Writ Petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT DELHI

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1031 and 1164 of 2019

ANURADHA BHASIN

…………… Appellant

-Versus-

UNION OF INDIA

………………. Respondent

ANURADHA BHASIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT

Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the
provisions of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that laws and executive actions are in
accordance with the Constitution and can strike down any law or action that it deems
unconstitutional.

Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in civil,
criminal, and constitutional cases. It hears appeals from various High Courts and other
tribunals across the country.

Advisory Jurisdiction: The President of India can seek the opinion of the Supreme
Court on any question of law or public importance.

Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain cases
involving disputes between the Government of India and one or more states, or
disputes between states themselves.

12 | P a g e
 Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Supreme Court has played a significant role in
promoting PILs, allowing individuals or organizations to approach the court on behalf
of the public interest.

CASE TITLE Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

CASE NO Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1031 and 1164 of 2019

DATE OF THE 10.01.2020

ORDER

JURISDICTION Supreme Court of India

QUORUM N. V. Rammana, R. Subhash Reddy and [Link], JJ.

AUTHOR OF THE N.V. Rammana, J

JUDGMENT

APPELLANT Anuradha Bhasin and others.

RESPONDENT Union Of India

COUNSEL OF Senior Counsels Ms. Vrinda Grover, and Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil
APPELLANT Sibbal

COUNSEL OF Mr. K.K Venugopal, Learned Attorney General of India, and Mr. Tushar
RESPONDENT Mehta, Solicitor General

INTERVENOR Senior Counsels Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Ms.
Meenakshi Arora, and others

ACTS AND Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Indian constitution Article
SECTIONS 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g), Article 21A and restrictions thereof
INVOLVED Restrictions Under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure Other acts

13 | P a g e
 and rules Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public
Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017 Rule 2 (2) Telegraph Act of
1885 Section 5(2)

Judicial Review: The court can review the legality and constitutionality of laws,
executive orders, and government actions.

Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can issue writs such as habeas corpus,
mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto to protect the fundamental rights
of individuals.

The Supreme Court's judgments and decisions are binding on all lower courts in
India. Its rulings set precedents that guide the country's legal system and impact the
interpretation of laws for future cases. The court's decisions have played a crucial role
in shaping the legal landscape of the nation.

ABSTRACT

In today's world, the internet plays a significant role in our daily lives. For many
things, such as trade and business, we rely heavily on the internet. The Internet has
grown to be so significant that it is now covered in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
The main objective of the lawsuit was to determine if the prohibition on using internet
facilities was legal, hence this judgment is quite significant. In addition, the Apex
Court has established a set of guidelines to prevent the Government from abusing its
authority, particularly in such circumstances. The problem arose in 2019 when the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued a "Security Advisory'' and advised
tourists. to return to ensure their safety. In addition, orders were issued to close
educational institutions. The judgment covered various essentials pertaining to liberty
and security of individuals.

Introduction

14 | P a g e
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

The access or feasibility of connectivity with other people through any technological
medium as such was entirely restricted and put forth to pause for many days in a
continuous manner. The social distancing and isolation for the residents of Jammu and
Kashmir was not just an offline concept but they were poorly isolated from online
channels, the motive behind such an action was security which took away various
privileges of these people. Liberty and security have always been at odds. The
question before us, simply put, is which is more important: liberty or security?
Despite the fact that the choice appears to be difficult. We must move beyond
rhetorical platitudes and provide a meaningful response to ensure that every citizen
has adequate security and liberty. The pendulum of preference should not swing in
either extreme direction so that one preference compromises the other. It is not our
expertise to answer whether it is better to be free than secure or secure rather than
free. We are only here to ensure that citizens have all of their rights and liberties to the
greatest extent possible in a given situation while also ensuring security. The enormity
of the work in front of this Court makes its duty more difficult in this situation. The
steps taken by the government affected people at large, educational institutions, and
various essential offices were ordered to remain closed.

Facts of the Case

A. The problem began when mobile, landline and internet services were shut off in
the state of Jammu and Kashmir (hence referred to as "J&K") on August 4, 2019 1,
along with travel restrictions in some areas. The Indian government

B. published Constitutional Order 272 on August 5, 2019. The 2019 Constitution

(Application of Jammu and Kashmir) Order abolished J&K's special category status.
Section 144 was implemented in response to these conditions when there was
suspicion of a breach of state peace and tranquility. Anuradha Bhasin, the executive
editor of Kashmir Time2 and the petitioner, argued that the restrictions violated her

1 Politics, Economic Times

2 Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1031

15 | P a g e
right to freedom of expression and her right to move about as she saw fit under Article
19 of the Indian Constitution3.

C. Ghulam Nabi Azad 4filed a similar appeal in an effort to have any government
orders, notices, directives, or circulars that forbade the use of all or any channels of
communication annulled or set aside. In addition, the petitioners asked the court to
issue a proper writ ordering respondents to immediately restore all forms of
communication in order to create a conducive environment for the media to carry out
its work by ensuring the freedom of movement and safety of reporters and journalists
in order to allow them to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and
expression. After hearing from attorneys and intervenors from both petitioners, the
two petitions were consolidated, and the matter was listed for the final disposition.

Arguments in Favor of the Appellant

A. It was argued that the Petitioner, as executive editor of one of the major
newspapers, was unable to function after 05.08.2019 due to various press restrictions 5.

B. Print media came to a halt once more due to the lack of internet services, which she
believes is absolutely necessary for the modern press.

C. Internet censorship is a restriction on the right to free expression and should be

judged on the basis of reasonableness and proportionality.

D. That the freedom of trade and commerce through the internet is protected under
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution, subject to certain restrictions set forth in
Article 19 (6) of the Indian Constitution.

E. the learned Counsel contended that the orders are based on a fear of a threat to law
and order. Public order is not the same as law and order, and the situation at the time
the orders were passed did not warrant the passing of the orders resulting in
restrictions.

F. In another Writ Petition, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, a Member of Parliament (MP)
from the state of Jammu and Kashmir, argued the following:

3 Ozair Husain V. Union of India, 2003.

4 W.P. 1164 Of 2019
5 Madhu Likhaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr (1970)

16 | P a g e
G. Section 144 restrictions must be imposed on a specific group of people and cannot
be applied to the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir. 1. The government should
impose less restrictive measures and balance Indian citizens' Fundamental Rights
while maintaining public security. 2. The imposition of internet restrictions
throughout the state of Jammu and Kashmir affects both freedoms of expression and
freedom to engage in any trade, profession, or occupation.

Arguments in Favor of the Respondent

A. The learned Solicitor General contended that the orders issued in Section 144 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure allow for preventive measures to be taken in order to
protect public safety. The Magistrate can issue an order based on personal knowledge,
and this is supposed to be a quick mechanism. The orders issued must be considered
in light of the State's history and background.

B. Regarding the Petitioner’s contention that the restrictions could have been imposed
on specific individuals, the learned Solicitor General argued that it was impossible to
separate and control troublemakers from ordinary citizens in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir.

C. Concerning the communications and internet shutdown, the learned Solicitor

General stated that internet access was never restricted in Jammu and Ladakh. He also
claimed that social media, which allows people to send messages and communicate
with multiple people at the same time, could be used to incite violence. The purpose
of the limited and restricted use of the internet is to ensure that targeted messages
from outside the country do not aggravate the situation on the ground. Furthermore,
the internet allows for the transmission of false news or fake images, which are then
used to spread violence. Individuals can easily purchase weapons and illegal
substances on the dark web.

Order of the Court

A. The Court ruled that the State should indeed deliver the orders imposing the
restrictions because determining the legality of the restrictions becomes exceptionally
challenging in the absence of such orders. States must disclose such data to

17 | P a g e
demonstrate to the Court that a right to remedy exists under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution6.

B. The Court relied on several landmark decisions to reiterate that the right to freedom
of expression under Article 19 includes the right to information as an important
component. The Court went on to say that "a democracy sworn to transparency and
accountability must necessarily mandate the production of orders because it is an
individual's right to know." The significance of fundamental rights requires a state to
act responsibly in protecting them, and no law should be passed in secret solely on the
basis of apprehension of danger.

C. As a result, the state should ensure that its citizens are informed of any law that
restricts their freedom unless a compelling public interest prevails.

D. The Court reaffirmed that the entitlement to free expression protected by Article 19
pertains to the internet, referencing its extensive case law that had previously
extended protection to numerous new media outlets for expression. The Court then
held that, despite the use of the internet being protected by the constitution under
Article 19, it is still subject to some "reasonable restrictions."

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, after hearing extensive arguments from both parties and
intervenors, delivered its judgment:

1. Recognition of Fundamental Rights: The Court reaffirmed that the right to

freedom of speech and expression, including the right to access information, is
a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution.

2. Importance of Proportionality: Emphasizing the principles of

proportionality and necessity, the Court held that any restriction on
fundamental rights must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat posed.
The blanket shutdown of internet services was deemed excessive and not
adequately justified by the government.

6 1951 AIR 270

18 | P a g e
 3. Transparency and Accountability: The Court underscored the importance of
transparency and accountability in governmental actions, particularly in
matters involving fundamental rights. It stressed that the State must disclose
orders imposing such restrictions and ensure that citizens are informed of the
reasons behind such decisions.

4. Judicial Review: The judgment reinforced the role of the judiciary in

safeguarding constitutional rights against executive actions. It asserted that
courts have the authority to review the legality and constitutionality of
government orders affecting fundamental rights.

Personal Opinion

The judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India marks a significant milestone in

Indian constitutional law, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to upholding
fundamental rights amidst evolving challenges. It highlights the imperative of
balancing national security concerns with the protection of individual liberties,
underscoring the judiciary's pivotal role as a bulwark against executive overreach.
While recognizing the legitimate concerns of state security, the Court rightly asserts
that any restriction on rights must be narrowly tailored, proportionate, and subject to
rigorous judicial review to prevent undue curtailment of freedoms essential to a
democratic society.

In conclusion, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India stands as a testament to India's

constitutional commitment to liberty and justice, setting a precedent for future cases
involving the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and national security.

References

1. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1031 and 1164
of 2019, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated January 10, 2020.

2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

3. Indian Express v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.

4. C. VAISHNAVI SARMA, “Case Commentary - ANURADHA BHASIN

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA”, II, IJLR, 2 (5) & 1 of 2022.

19 | P a g e
3.2 Report on Writ Petition.

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT DELHI

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Navtej Singh Johar & Others

……….. PETITIONER

- VERSUS -

Union of India, Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice

………… RESPONDENTS

OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT-

1. Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court has the authority to

interpret the provisions of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that laws and
executive actions are in accordance with the Constitution and can strike down
any law or action that it deems unconstitutional.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in
civil, criminal, and constitutional cases. It hears appeals from various High
Courts and other tribunals across the country.
3. Advisory Jurisdiction: The President of India can seek the opinion of the
Supreme Court on any question of law or public importance.

20 | P a g e
 4. Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain
cases involving disputes between the Government of India and one or more
states, or disputes between states themselves.
5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Supreme Court has played a significant
role in promoting PILs, allowing individuals or organizations to approach the
court on behalf of the public interest.
6. Judicial Review: The court can review the legality and constitutionality of
laws, executive orders, and government actions.
7. Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can issue writs such as habeas corpus,
mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto to protect the
fundamental rights of individuals.

The Supreme Court's judgments and decisions are binding on all lower courts in
India. Its rulings set precedents that guide the country's legal system and impact the
interpretation of laws for future cases. The court's decisions have played a crucial role
in shaping the legal landscape of the nation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE-

1. The case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India marks a watershed
5

moment in the legal and social history of India. At the heart of this case was
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, a colonial-era law that
criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." This provision was
primarily used to target and criminalize the LGBTQ community, perpetuating a
culture of discrimination and stigmatization.

2. The petitioners, a diverse group of five individuals, included Navtej Singh Johar, a
renowned dancer; Sunil Mehra, a journalist; Ritu Dalmia, a chef and restaurateur;
Aman Nath, an architect and historian; and Ayesha Kapur, a business executive.
They challenged the constitutionality of Section 377, arguing that it violated their
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioners contended that Section 377 was not only archaic but also
discriminatory, as it specifically targeted consensual sexual activities between
adults of the same sex. They argued that the law infringed upon their right to
equality (Article 14), freedom of expression (Article 19), and the right to life and
21 | P a g e
 personal liberty (Article 21). The petitioners emphasized that the provision was a
relic of colonial rule, imposed by the British, and was out of sync with
contemporary values of dignity, privacy, and individual autonomy.

4. The case was first brought before the Delhi High Court in 2009, where the court
ruled in favor of decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts between adults. The
High Court held that Section 377, in so far as it criminalized consensual sexual
acts between adults in private, was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental
rights of individuals. However, this decision was later overturned by the Supreme
Court in 2013 in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation , which reinstated the
6

criminality of homosexual acts, stating that only the legislature could amend or
repeal the law.

5. The Supreme Court's 2013 decision sparked widespread outrage and

disappointment among human rights activists and the LGBTQ community. It was
seen as a significant setback for the rights of LGBTQ individuals and a blow to
the principles of equality and non-discrimination. In response, the petitioners
filed a curative petition, which led to the reconsideration of the issue by a larger
bench of the Supreme Court in 2016.

6. The hearings in the Navtej Singh Johar case commenced in July 2018, with a five-
judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The petitioners'
counsel argued that Section 377 was not only discriminatory but also violated the
dignity of individuals. They emphasized that the provision perpetuated a culture
of fear and stigma, forcing LGBTQ individuals to live in the shadows and
suppress their true identities.

7. The respondents, representing the Union of India, argued that the matter involved
complex social and moral issues and should be left to the wisdom of the
Parliament. They contended that the court should refrain from striking down the
law, as it could have far-reaching social implications. However, the respondents
did acknowledge that there was a need to decriminalize consensual sexual acts
between adults in private and suggested that the court could read down the
provision to exclude such acts from its purview.

22 | P a g e
8. The court also heard submissions from various interveners, including human rights
organizations, mental health professionals, and religious groups. The interveners
in support of the petitioners argued that Section 377 was not only unconstitutional
but also had severe psychological and social consequences for LGBTQ
individuals. They highlighted the experiences of discrimination, harassment, and
violence faced by the community and called for the decriminalization of
consensual homosexual acts.

9. On the other hand, some religious groups opposed the decriminalization, arguing
that homosexuality was against the cultural and moral values of Indian society.
They contended that decriminalizing such acts would lead to a breakdown of
social and moral fabric. However, these arguments were largely overshadowed by
the overwhelming support for decriminalization from various quarters, including
legal experts, human rights activists, and mental health professionals.

JUDGMENT-

1) On September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a unanimous decision by a

five-judge Constitution Bench, delivered its judgment in the case of Navtej Singh
Johar & Ors. v. Union of India. The Court struck down Section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) to the extent it criminalized consensual sexual acts between
adults of the same sex in private.

2) The Constitution Bench comprised Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R.F.
Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra. The Court
held that Section 377, to the extent that it penalized consensual sexual conduct
between adults of the same sex, violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3) The judgment emphasized that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of individual

identity and the criminalization of consensual sexual acts between adults of the
same sex violated the right to privacy, dignity, and autonomy guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court underscored that equality demands
recognition and protection of all sexual orientations and identities, and any
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional.

23 | P a g e
4) In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India, in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union
of India, declared that Section 377 of the IPC, to the extent it criminalized
consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex in private, was
unconstitutional and void. The judgment marked a significant step towards
affirming the rights of LGBTQ individuals and promoting inclusivity and
equality in Indian society.

SELF OBSERVATION-

The judgment in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India holds profound
implications not only for the LGBTQ community but also for the broader discourse
on human rights and equality in India. As I reflect on this landmark case, several
observations come to mind:

1. Impact on Legal Landscape:

The decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts between adults marks a

significant shift in India's legal landscape. It acknowledges that laws must evolve with
societal norms and values, reflecting a more inclusive understanding of human rights.
This decision paves the way for future legal reforms and challenges discriminatory
laws that marginalize minority communities.

2. Upholding Constitutional Values:

The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the principles enshrined in the Constitution,
particularly the rights to equality, dignity, and personal liberty. By striking down
Section 377, the court underscores its role as a guardian of fundamental rights,
ensuring that all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, enjoy equal protection
under the law.

3. Social and Cultural Impact:

Beyond its legal implications, the judgment has profound social and cultural
implications. It challenges prevailing prejudices and stereotypes, promoting greater
acceptance and understanding of diverse sexual orientations. The court's recognition
of LGBTQ rights contributes to a more inclusive society where individuals can live
authentically without fear of discrimination or persecution.

24 | P a g e
4. Role of Judiciary in Social Change:

The Navtej Singh Johar case exemplifies the judiciary's pivotal role in advancing
social change. Through its progressive interpretation of constitutional rights, the
Supreme Court has catalyzed broader conversations about equality and justice. The
judgment encourages dialogue on LGBTQ rights and fosters a more empathetic and
compassionate society.

5. Continuing Challenges:
While the judgment represents a significant victory, challenges remain in achieving
full equality for LGBTQ individuals. Discrimination, stigma, and societal prejudices
continue to affect their everyday lives. Efforts must focus on education, awareness,
and policy reforms to ensure meaningful inclusion and protection of LGBTQ rights in
all spheres of life.

25 | P a g e