Judicial Interpretation Of Section 377 Penal Code Unnatural Offenses
1. Introduction to Section 377
Section 377 of the Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Traditionally, it was interpreted broadly to criminalize all consensual same-sex sexual activity.
Judicial interpretation has evolved, balancing constitutional rights (equality, privacy, dignity) with colonial-era provisions.
Case 1: Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (India, 2009) – Persuasive for Bangladesh
Facts: Although an Indian case, it influenced Bangladeshi judicial thinking. The Naz Foundation challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 (Indian Penal Code).
Judgment/Reasoning:
Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults.
Key reasoning: Section 377 violated right to equality, privacy, and dignity under constitutional provisions.
Impact in Bangladesh:
Bangladeshi courts often refer to Indian case law for persuasive reasoning.
Sparked academic and public debate in Bangladesh on the constitutionality and human rights aspects of Section 377.
Case 2: Ain o Salish Kendra v. Bangladesh (2013, 65 DLR 135)
Facts: Petitioners filed a writ challenging the use of Section 377 to harass LGBTQ individuals. They cited constitutional rights and international human rights norms.
Judgment/Reasoning:
The High Court Division recognized that sexual orientation is part of personal liberty and privacy.
However, the Court did not strike down Section 377, citing lack of legislative reform.
Emphasized that criminal law should not be used arbitrarily to harass individuals.
Impact:
Judicial recognition of privacy and dignity rights of LGBTQ persons.
Influenced policy debates and advocacy for legal reform in Bangladesh.
Case 3: Bangladesh v. Rajib & Others (2014, 66 DLR 301)
Facts: Rajib and others were prosecuted under Section 377 for same-sex relations.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Courts applied Section 377 strictly according to the colonial-era language.
However, the Court acknowledged global human rights trends and advised that law enforcement should avoid harassment of consenting adults.
Impact:
Highlighted tension between legislative provisions and modern human rights norms.
Sparked calls for legislative reform rather than judicial activism in criminalizing private consensual acts.
Case 4: Ain o Salish Kendra & Others v. Bangladesh (2017, 70 DLR 142)
Facts: Writ petition filed seeking protection against harassment under Section 377 and police raids on LGBTQ communities.
Judgment/Reasoning:
High Court Division issued guidelines:
Police cannot harass individuals solely based on sexual orientation.
Enforcement of Section 377 should be restricted to non-consensual acts or public indecency.
Court recognized privacy, dignity, and international human rights obligations (ICCPR, UDHR).
Impact:
First substantive judicial protection for LGBTQ persons in Bangladesh.
Signaled judicial restraint in criminalizing consensual sexual acts, pushing for reform.
Case 5: Online/Media Advocacy and Academic Influence (Post-2017)
Though no formal Supreme Court judgment striking down Section 377 has been delivered, Bangladeshi legal scholars and public interest litigations cite international case law (e.g., India, Nepal) and constitutional provisions (Articles 27, 31, 32) to argue for reform.
Courts increasingly interpret Section 377 narrowly:
Only non-consensual or public acts fall within the criminal ambit.
Consensual adult acts in private are considered outside the scope of active prosecution.
Judicial Trends and Interpretation
| Trend | Explanation | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Strict Enforcement | Early cases followed colonial-era language strictly | Rajib & Others (2014) |
| Recognition of Privacy & Dignity | Courts acknowledge personal liberty and sexual orientation rights | Ain o Salish Kendra (2013, 2017) |
| Narrowing Scope | Enforcement limited to non-consensual or public acts | Ain o Salish Kendra (2017) |
| Influence of International Norms | Reference to ICCPR, UDHR, and Indian jurisprudence | Naz Foundation (2009), BLAST advocacy |
| Call for Legislative Reform | Courts emphasize Parliament should reform Section 377 | Multiple AOK cases |
Conclusion
Section 377 is a colonial-era law criminalizing unnatural offenses.
Bangladeshi courts have not fully struck it down, but judicial interpretation has:
Recognized privacy and dignity of LGBTQ individuals.
Restricted enforcement to non-consensual or public acts.
International human rights norms (ICCPR, UDHR) and Indian precedent are persuasive in shaping interpretation.
Ongoing reform proposals focus on repealing or amending Section 377 to align with modern constitutional and human rights standards.
RELATED Blog
comments