Ajuni, LLM (Criminal Law), Amity Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Amity University, Noida
ABSTRACT
“Neither the life of an individual, nor the history of a society cannot be understood without understanding both” – C. Wright Mills
Homosexuality in India has been an invisible conflict, a never-ending debate, having no solution attached to it .A social stigma has been attached to the word ‘homosexuals’, or the ‘people attracted towards the same-sex’. This stigma created an apprehension among the people when choosing their life partners, they often went along the will of the society and not their individual will. An individual’s will was weighed down by the society’s will, traditions and customs. The custom of the male-female union became so deep rooted in the society that the right to choose one’s gender identity and one’s life partner lost its path. Whereas the right to choose one’s life partner is an integral part of the right to live with dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution2 and , includes choosing one’s partner whether of the same or of the opposite sex. Whenever this right was exercised upon, the same-sex couples faced harsh discrimination and were looked down upon by the society. The deep – rooted stigma of the society came to be eradicated only on the 6th of September, 2018, when, the Humble Supreme Court of India read down section 377, in its judgment ‘Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. V. Union of India (Through Ministry Of Law And Justice)’3. The court under this judgment determined the constitutionality of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the criminality of the section. The verdict was marked as the landmark judgment on LGBTQ+ rights. This piece of writing aims to bring a contrast in the history and the current scenario of Section 377 and the rights of the LGBTQ community. It seeks to give a view of the journey of the LGBTQ community from inclusion of section 377 in the Indian Penal Code to finally rendering Section 377 unconstitutional and scrapping off the archaic law. It also seeks to put forward the views of the community after the judgment of the Supreme Court, while highlighting the section as it stands today.
