Case Law On Lgbtq+ Rights Protection
1. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) – India
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: Constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalizing same-sex intercourse.
Decision:
The Delhi High Court held that Section 377, to the extent it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults in private, violated Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), 14 (Right to Equality), and 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the Indian Constitution.
The Court emphasized dignity, privacy, and equality, and held that moral disapproval by the majority cannot override constitutional rights.
Significance:
This was the first judicial recognition of LGBTQ+ rights in India.
Although later overturned by the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013), this case laid the foundation for LGBTQ+ constitutional jurisprudence in India.
2. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) – India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment in Naz Foundation.
Decision:
The Supreme Court reinstated Section 377, stating that the LGBTQ+ population is a “minuscule minority” and that the High Court's interpretation of constitutional rights was misplaced.
It held that any change to Section 377 should come from the legislature, not the judiciary.
Significance:
This ruling was heavily criticized for being regressive and undermining fundamental rights.
It prompted national and international outrage and mobilized civil society toward LGBTQ+ advocacy, eventually leading to Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).
3. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – India
Court: Supreme Court of India (5-judge Constitutional Bench)
Issue: Constitutional validity of Section 377 after the Koushal judgment.
Decision:
The Court partially struck down Section 377, decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults.
It held that Section 377, as it applied to consensual acts in private, violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the state has no business regulating private consensual behavior.
The ruling recognized sexual orientation as an innate and immutable identity, deserving constitutional protection.
Significance:
A historic victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
It restored dignity and legality to millions of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Also laid the groundwork for future conversations on marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws, and gender identity.
4. NALSA v. Union of India (2014) – India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Rights of transgender individuals.
Decision:
The Court recognized transgender people as a ‘third gender’ under Indian law.
It ruled that gender identity is a part of Article 21 (Right to Life) and self-identification must be respected.
It also directed the government to take steps to provide reservations, social welfare, and legal recognition.
Significance:
First case to legally recognize gender identity and non-binary persons in India.
Affirmed that transgender persons have equal protection of laws and must not face discrimination.
A major step towards the legal recognition of gender diversity.
5. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – United States
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Issue: Legality of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution.
Decision:
The Court held that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, as they violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy emphasized that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty and denying it to same-sex couples demeans their dignity.
Significance:
Legalized same-sex marriage across all 50 states.
Became a global benchmark for marriage equality.
Empowered movements in other countries to seek similar recognition.
6. Toonen v. Australia (1994) – United Nations Human Rights Committee
Body: UN Human Rights Committee
Issue: Tasmania's law criminalizing same-sex relations.
Decision:
The Committee ruled that the law violated Article 17 (Right to Privacy) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It interpreted sexual orientation as a protected category under non-discrimination provisions.
Significance:
First international recognition that laws criminalizing homosexuality violate international human rights.
Led to the repeal of the anti-gay law in Tasmania.
Influenced other international decisions on LGBTQ+ rights.
7. Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) – United States
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination "on the basis of sex," includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
Decision:
The Court held that discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees is a form of sex discrimination, thus unlawful under Title VII.
Justice Gorsuch emphasized that if an employer fires someone for being gay or transgender, they are treating that person differently because of their sex.
Significance:
Extended employment discrimination protections to LGBTQ+ people nationwide.
Cemented the legal understanding that LGBTQ+ discrimination is sex-based.
Conclusion: Key Themes Across Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Equality (Art. 14/Equal Protection) | Laws that criminalize or discriminate against LGBTQ+ people violate the principle of equal treatment under the law. |
| Right to Privacy (Art. 21 / Due Process) | LGBTQ+ individuals have a right to privacy in their sexual and personal lives. |
| Human Dignity | Denying rights based on sexual orientation or gender identity demeans human dignity. |
| Recognition of Identity | Courts increasingly recognize that gender and sexual orientation are intrinsic aspects of personal identity, not deviant behaviors. |
| Judicial Role | Where legislatures fail to protect minorities, courts have stepped in to uphold constitutional principles. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments