Constitutional Protection Of LGBTQA+ Rights In India: From Decriminalisation To Substantive Equality
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 1
- 2 min read
Anveshika Raj, LL.M. (Constitutional Law), Amity Law School, Lucknow
Dr. Taru Mishra, Assistant Professor, Amity Law School, Lucknow
ABSTRACT
The legal recognition of LGBTQA+ rights in India represents one of the most transformative developments in contemporary constitutional jurisprudence. Historically, sexual and gender minorities faced systemic marginalisation, exclusion, and criminalisation, most notably under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and sanctioned widespread social stigma. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships, affirming the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Beyond decriminalisation, however, substantive equality for LGBTQA+ persons requires a multifaceted legal and policy approach encompassing rights to marriage, adoption, employment, healthcare, and gender recognition.
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional protection of LGBTQA+ rights in India, tracing the evolution of judicial reasoning, legislative reforms, and international normative frameworks, including the Yogyakarta Principles. The paper critically examines how Indian courts have balanced individual rights against societal norms, the role of the legislature in filling gaps left by judicial interpretation, and the intersectionality of sexual orientation, gender identity, caste, class, and religion in the experience of discrimination. Furthermore, it evaluates the limits of existing protections and identifies the areas where legal recognition has yet to achieve substantive equality, particularly in family law, workplace discrimination, and access to social welfare schemes. The study argues that while judicial intervention has played a critical role in recognising LGBTQA+ rights, long-term substantive equality depends on a combination of constitutional interpretation, legislative reform, and social acceptance.
Keywords: LGBTQA+, Constitutional Rights, Decriminalisation, Substantive Equality, Article 14, Article 15, Article 21, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Human Rights, Judicial Activism, Social Inclusion
