🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 152 (from laksa181)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa152.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377","crawl_time":1773722788,"first_indexed_time":1386811178,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"org,wikipedia!en,\/wiki\/Section_377 s443","src_root_hash":"17790707453426894952","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"Section 377 - Wikipedia","meta_descriptions":[],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"Section 377\nis a\nBritish colonial\nPenal Code\nprovision that\ncriminalized\nall\nsexual acts\n\"against the order of nature\". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in\noral\nand\nanal sex\nalong with\nhomosexual\nactivity. As per a Supreme Court of\nIndia\njudgement since 2018, the\nIndian Penal Code\nSection 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years' imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize\nthird gender\npeople, such as the\napwint\nin\nMyanmar\n.\n[\n1\n]\nIn 2018, then\nBritish Prime Minister\nTheresa May\nacknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.\n[\n2\n]\nAlthough the act of sodomy was sometimes prosecuted in England under British\ncommon law\n, it was first\ncodified\nin the\nBritish empire\nas Section 377 in the\nIndian Penal Code\nas \"carnal intercourse against the order of nature\" in 1860. Section 377 was then exported to other colonies and even to England itself, providing the legal model for the act of '\nbuggery\n' in the\nOffences Against the Person Act\n(1861).\n[\n2\n]\nAlok Gupta wrote for a\nHuman Rights Watch\nreport in 2008 that the British intended for the code to prevent\nChristian\ncolonial subjects from \"\ncorruption\n\", and to condition colonized subjects undergoing\nChristianization\nto conform to colonial authority.\n[\n3\n]\nThis consequently had a big impact on\ncolonial-era sexuality in India.\nAlthough Section 377 did not explicitly include the word\nhomosexual\n, it has been used to prosecute\nhomosexual\nactivity. The provision was introduced by authorities in the\nRaj\nin 1862 as\nSection 377 of the Indian Penal Code\nand functioned as the\nlegal\nimpetus behind the\ncriminalization\nof what was referred to as, \"unnatural offences\" throughout the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number.\n[\n4\n]\n[\n5\n]\n[\n1\n]\nIn\nSingapore\n, a similar law called\nSection 377A\nof the Singapore Penal Code was introduced in 1938 by the colonial government that had also criminalized sex between men. In 2022, then Prime Minister\nLee Hsien Loong\nhad announced that the provision would be repealed.\n[\n6\n]\n[\n7\n]\nIt was repealed on 29 November 2022 when the bill passed in Parliament.\n[\ncitation needed\n]\nWhere Section 377 remains in force\n[\nedit\n]\nAlthough most colonies have since gained\nindependence\nthrough\nstatehood\nsince Section 377 was implemented, it remains in the\npenal codes\nof the following countries, all of which were formerly a part of the\nBritish Empire\n:\nSection 377 of the Indian Penal Code\nwas a section of the\nIndian Penal Code\nintroduced in 1861 during the\nBritish rule of India\n. Modeled on the\nBuggery Act 1533\n, it made sexual activities \"against the order of nature\" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the\nSupreme Court of India\nruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual\nhomosexual sex\nbetween adults was unconstitutional, \"irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary\",\n[\n9\n]\nbut that Section 377 remained in force relating to sex with\nminors\n,\nnon-consensual\nsexual acts, and\nbestiality\n.\n[\n10\n]\nSection 377 was fully replaced along with the rest of the Indian Penal Code by the\nBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)\n[\n11\n]\non 1 July 2024.\nPortions of the section were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to\ngay sex\nby the\nDelhi High Court\nin July 2009.\n[\n12\n]\n[\n13\n]\n[\n14\n]\nThat judgement was overturned by the\nSupreme Court of India\n(SC) on 11 December 2013 in\nSuresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation\n. The Court held that amending or repealing section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.\n[\n15\n]\n[\n16\n]\nOn 6 February 2016, a three-member bench of the Court reviewed curative petitions submitted by the\nNaz Foundation\nand others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench.\n[\n17\n]\nOn 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution in the landmark\nPuttaswamy\njudgement. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the\nfundamental rights\nand that the rights of the\nLGBT\npopulation are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.\n[\n18\n]\nThis judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377.\n[\n19\n]\n[\n20\n]\n[\n21\n]\nIn January 2018, the\nSupreme Court of India\nagreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013\nNaz Foundation\njudgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in\nNavtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\nthat Section 377 was unconstitutional \"in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex\".\n[\n22\n]\n[\n23\n]\nThe judgment was given by a five-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India\nDipak Misra\n, Justices\nR. F. Nariman\n,\nD. Y. Chandrachud\n,\nA. M. Khanwilkar\nand\nIndu Malhotra\n.\n[\ncitation needed\n]\n377. Unnatural offences\n: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.\nExplanation\n: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.\n[\n24\n]\n[\n25\n]\nParticipant carrying a poster on Section 377 during\nBhubaneswar\nPride Parade\nIn 2008 Additional\nSolicitor General\nPP Malhotra said: \"\nHomosexuality\nis a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. [Decriminalising homosexuality] may create [a] breach of peace. If it is allowed then [the] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society.\" This view was shared by the Home Ministry.\n[\n26\n]\n11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it \"the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other's religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment\" The\nDaily News and Analysis\narticle added that Baba\nRamdev\n, India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not \"turn homosexual\", stated he could \"cure\" homosexuality through yoga and called it \"a bad addiction\".\n[\n27\n]\nOpposition and criticism\n[\nedit\n]\nThe\nMinistry of Health and Family Welfare\nopposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti-\nHIV\/AIDS\nefforts.\n[\n28\n]\n[\n29\n]\nAccording to the\nNCRB\n, in 2015, 1,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women.\n[\n30\n]\nHuman Rights Watch\nalso argued that the law had been used to harass\nHIV\/AIDS\nprevention efforts, as well as\nsex workers\n,\nhomosexuals\n, and other groups at risk of the disease,\n[\n31\n]\neven though those found guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that relate to Section 377 may face a life sentence under a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC.\n[\n32\n]\nThe\nPeople's Union for Civil Liberties\nhas published two reports on the rights violations faced by sexual minorities\n[\n33\n]\nand, in particular,\ntranssexuals\nin India.\n[\n34\n]\nIn 2006, Section 377 came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,\n[\n35\n]\nmost prominently\nVikram Seth\n. The law subsequently drew even more criticism from several ministers, most prominently\nAnbumani Ramadoss\n[\n36\n]\nand\nOscar Fernandes\n.\n[\n37\n]\nIn 2008, a judge of the\nBombay High Court\nalso called for the scrapping of the law.\n[\n38\n]\nThe\nUnited Nations\nalso said that the ban violated international law.\nUnited Nations human rights\nchief\nNavi Pillay\nstated that \"Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified\", and that the decision \"represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights.\", voicing hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure.\n[\n39\n]\nView of political parties\n[\nedit\n]\nOpposition to repeal\n[\nedit\n]\nRajnath Singh\n, a member of the ruling party\nBJP\nand the Home Minister, is on record shortly after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is \"unambiguously\" in favour of the law, also claiming that \"We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported.\"\n[\n40\n]\nYogi Adityanath\n, BJP\nMP\n, welcomed the 2013 verdict and will \"oppose any move to decriminalise homosexuality.\"\n[\n41\n]\nThe\nSamajwadi Party\nmade it clear that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality \"unethical and immoral\".\n[\n42\n]\nRam Gopal Yadav\nstated that they support the Supreme Court decision as \"It is completely against the culture of our nation.\"\n[\n4\n]\nThe Congress party-led\nUPA government\nalso supported the law during the initial\nNaz Foundation\ncase, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalized.\n[\n43\n]\nBharatiya Janata Party\nleader\nSubramanian Swamy\nsaid that homosexuality was not a normal thing and was against\nHindutva\n.\n[\n44\n]\nHe went on to say that it was \"a danger to our national security\" and that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. He added that \"there is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll be a cover for\npedophiles\nand a huge rise in HIV cases.\"\n[\n45\n]\nAfter the 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court, the\nIndian Union Muslim League\ncontinued to oppose decriminalisation, saying 'homosexuality is against Indian culture'.\n[\n46\n]\nFormer Finance Minister and BJP member\nArun Jaitley\nsaid that \"Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalized consensual sex between gay adults\" and \"When millions of people the world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed.\"\n[\n47\n]\n[\n48\n]\nBJP spokesperson\nShaina NC\nsaid her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. \"We are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.\"\n[\n49\n]\nIn December 2013,\nIndian National Congress\nPresident\nRahul Gandhi\ncame out in support of LGBT rights and said that \"every individual had the right to choose\". He also said \"These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, freedom of expression. So let that be. I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement\", he said. The LGBT rights movement in India was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections.\n[\n47\n]\nSonia Gandhi\nalso shared a similar view.\n[\n50\n]\nSenior Congress leader and former Finance Minister\nP. Chidambaram\nstated that the 2013\nSuresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation\njudgement must be quickly reversed.\n[\n4\n]\nHe also said that \"Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck down or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement by Justice AP Shah.\"\n[\n51\n]\nThe\nRSS\nrevised its position, the leader\nDattatreya Hosabale\nreportedly saying, \"no criminalisation, but no glorification either.\"\n[\n52\n]\nRSS chief\nMohan Bhagwat\nalso came out in support of the LGBTQIA+ community stating that they should be accepted as an integral part of society.\nAfter the 2013 verdict, the\nAam Aadmi Party\nput on their website:\nThe\nAam Aadmi party\nis disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Section 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the\nDelhi High Court\non the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the police. This not only violates the human rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will also step in to repeal this archaic law.\n[\n47\n]\nBrinda Karat\nof the\nCommunist Party\nsaid the SC order was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is wrong.\n[\n53\n]\nShivanand Tiwari\n, leader of\nJanata Dal United\n, did not support the\nSupreme Court\ndecision, calling\nhomosexuality\npractical and constitutional. He added that \"This happens in society and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Court trying to stop them?\"\n[\n4\n]\nDerek O'Brien\nof the\nTrinamool Congress\nsaid that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal world we live in today.\n[\n4\n]\nOn 18 December 2015,\nLok Sabha\nmember\nShashi Tharoor\nof the\nIndian National Congress\nintroduced a\nprivate member's bill\nto replace Section 377 in the\nIndian Penal Code\nand decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24.\n[\n54\n]\nFor his part, Tharoor expressed surprise at the bill's rejection at this early stage. He said that he did not have time to rally support and that he will attempt to reintroduce the bill.\n[\n54\n]\nIn March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's bill to decriminalize\nhomosexuality\nbut was voted down for the second time.\n[\n55\n]\n2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\n[\nedit\n]\nThe judgement of the\nHigh Court of Delhi\nof 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults\nThe movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by\nAIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan\nin 1991. Their historic publication\nLess than Gay: A Citizen's Report\n, spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal.\nA 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India'\nchronicles this early history.  As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the\nNaz Foundation (India) Trust\n, an activist group, which filed a\npublic interest litigation\nin the\nDelhi High Court\nin 2001, seeking the legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.\n[\n56\n]\nThe\nNaz Foundation\nworked with a legal team from the\nLawyers Collective\nto engage in court.\n[\n57\n]\nIn 2003, the\nDelhi High Court\nrefused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners, had no\nlocus standi\nin the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the\nDelhi High Court\nin the absence of a petitioner with standing.\nNaz Foundation\nappealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the\nHigh Court\nto dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit.\n[\n58\n]\nSubsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called 'Voices Against 377', which supported the demand to 'read down' section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.\n[\n59\n]\nThere was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with\nNavtej Singh Johar\nand drew from his personal experiences while protesting.\nRitu Dalmia\nalso demonstrated keen activism.\nAman Nath\n, a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Section 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg died.\n[\n60\n]\nAyesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent e-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out about her sexuality. Over time, she gained the courage to come out and challenge Section 377.\n[\n61\n]\nIn May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the\nDelhi High Court\n, but the Government was undecided on its position, with The\nMinistry of Home Affairs\nmaintaining a contradictory position to that of the Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to\nhomosexuality\n.\n[\n62\n]\nOn 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move.\n[\n63\n]\nOn 12 June 2009, India's new law minister\nVeerappa Moily\nagreed that Section 377 might be outdated.\n[\n64\n]\nEventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section,\n[\n65\n]\nlegalising consensual homosexual activities between adults.\n[\n66\n]\nThe essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice\nAjit Prakash Shah\nand Justice\nS. Muralidhar\nsaid that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.\nThe two-judge bench went on to hold that:\nIf there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as 'deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.\nWhere society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination.\nThis was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.\n[\n67\n]\nThe court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.\n[\n65\n]\nA batch of appeals were filed with the\nSupreme Court\n, challenging the\nDelhi High Court\njudgment. On 27 March 2012, the\nSupreme Court\nreserved verdict on these.\n[\n68\n]\nAfter initially opposing the judgement, the\nAttorney General\nG. E. Vahanvati\ndecided not to file any appeal against the\nDelhi High Court\n's verdict, stating, \"insofar as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private [before it was struck down by the High Court] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers.\"\n[\n68\n]\n2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation\n[\nedit\n]\nSuresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-judge\nSupreme Court\nbench consisting of\nG. S. Singhvi\nand\nS. J. Mukhopadhaya\noverturned the Delhi High Court case\nNaz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\nand reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.\nThis ruling was despite the urging of a group of mental health professionals who filed a collection of written submissions to the Supreme court with commentary on the case grounded in their expert opinion\n[\n69\n]\nThe mental health professionals noted that they frequently see LGBT or queer clients who suffer significant psychological distress—depression, anxiety, and more—due to the threat and social censure posed by IPC 377. These mental health professionals argued that IPC 377 causes LGBT and queer individuals to feel that they are \"criminals\", and that this status is a significant part of their psychological distress.\nThe United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay\n[\n70\n]\nvoiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it \"a significant step backwards\" for the country. In the wake of\nIndian Supreme Court\n's ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief\nBan Ki-moon\nstressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals.\n[\n71\n]\nSoon after the judgement,\nSonia Gandhi\n, President of the then ruling\nCongress party\n, asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-president,\nRahul Gandhi\nalso wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights.\n[\n72\n]\nIn July 2014, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju in the\nBJP\nled\nCentral government\ntold the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a decision regarding Section 377 of IPC can be taken only after pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court.\n[\n73\n]\nHowever, on 13 January 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, appearing on NDTV, stated, \"We [BJP] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.\"\n[\n74\n]\n2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition\n[\nedit\n]\nOn 2 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the\nNaz Foundation\nand others came for hearing in the\nSupreme Court\n. The three-member bench headed by the\nChief Justice of India\nT. S. Thakur\nsaid that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench.\n[\n17\n]\nRight to Privacy verdict\n[\nedit\n]\nOn 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the\nRight to Privacy verdict\n. In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a \"discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy.\" In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench,\nJustice Chandrachud\n(who authored for Justices\nKhehar\n,\nAgarwal\n,\nAbdul Nazeer\nand himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it.\nJustice Kaul\nagreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the\nConstitution of India\n.\n[\n18\n]\nSexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.\n[\n18\n]\n...Their rights are not \"so-called\" but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine. They inhere in the right to life. They dwell in privacy and dignity. They constitute the essence of liberty and freedom. Sexual orientation is an essential component of identity. Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.\n[\n18\n]\nHowever, as the curative petition (challenging Section 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts have suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the ground-work for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the\nHigh Court\n, thereby decriminalizing\nhomosexual sex\n.\n[\n75\n]\n[\n76\n]\n2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\n[\nedit\n]\nIn 2018, after decades of\ngrassroots\nactivism, the application of\nsection 377 of the Indian Penal Code\nto private consensual sex between men was ruled unconstitutional by India's\nSupreme Court\n, effectively\ndecriminalizing\nhomosexual activity.\n[\n47\n]\n[\n77\n]\nThe five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of chief justice\nDipak Misra\nand justices\nDhananjaya Y. Chandrachud\n,\nAjay Manikrao Khanwilkar\n,\nIndu Malhotra\n, and\nRohinton Fali Nariman\nstarted hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The\nUnion Government\ndid not take a position on the issue and left it to the \"wisdom of the court\" to decide on Section 377. The  petitioners invoked the right to\nsexual privacy\n,\ndignity\n, right against discrimination and freedom of expression to argue against the constitutionality of Section 377. After hearing the petitioners' plea for four days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018.\n[\n78\n]\nAnnouncing the verdict, the court reversed its own 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the\nIPC\nto victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act.\n[\n79\n]\n[\n80\n]\nIn its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law \"irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible.\"\n[\n81\n]\n[\n82\n]\nThe Wire\ndrew parallels between the supreme court's judgement and\nPrivy Council\n's 1929 verdict in\nEdwards vs Canada (AG)\nthat allowed for Women to sit in the\nSenate of Canada\n. It compared the petitioners to the Canadian\nFamous Five\n.\n[\n83\n]\nIn 2011, Italian film maker Adele Tulli, made\n365 Without 377\nwhich followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in\nBombay\ncelebrations.\n[\n84\n]\nIt won the\nTurin\nLGBT Film Fest award in 2011.\n[\n85\n]\nLGBT rights in Bangladesh\nLGBT rights in India\nLGBT rights in Myanmar\nLGBT rights in Pakistan\nLGBT rights in Sri Lanka\nArticle 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code\nSodomy law\nLGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations\n^\na\nb\nChua, Lynette J.; Gilbert, David (2016). \"State violence, human-rights violations and the case of apwint of Myanmar\".\nGender, Violence and the State in Asia\n. Taylor & Francis.\nISBN\n \n9781317325949\n.\n^\na\nb\nRao, Rahul (2020).\nOut of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality\n. Oxford University Press. pp. \n7–\n9.\nISBN\n \n9780190865535\n.\n^\nGupta, Alok (2008).\nThis Alien Legacy: The Origins of \"Anti-Sodomy\" Laws in British Colonialism\n. Human Rights Watch. p. 16.\nISBN\n \n9781564324191\n.\n^\na\nb\nc\nd\ne\nStoddard, Eve; Collins, John (2016).\nSocial and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies\n. Taylor & Francis. p. 135.\nISBN\n \n9781317509776\n.\n^\nMcCann, Hannah; Monaghan, Whitney (2020).\nQueer Theory Now\n. Red Globe Press. p. 163.\nISBN\n \n9781352007510\n.\n^\n\"NDR 2022: Govt to repeal Section 377A, amend Constitution to protect marriage definition from legal challenges\"\n.\nTODAY\n. Retrieved\n21 August\n2022\n.\n^\nAuto, Hermes (21 August 2022).\n\"NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Section 377A, decriminalise sex between men | The Straits Times\"\n.\nwww.straitstimes.com\n. Retrieved\n21 August\n2022\n.\n^\na\nb\nc\nd\nElliott, Josh (6 September 2018).\n\"India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't\"\n.\nGlobal News\n. Retrieved\n19 January\n2022\n.\n^\nRajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018).\n\"SC decriminalises homosexuality\"\n.\nThe Hindu\n– via www.thehindu.com.\n^\nPundir, Pallavi (6 September 2018).\n\"I Am What I Am. Take Me as I Am\"\n.\nVice News\n. Retrieved\n8 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023\"\n(PDF)\n.\n^\n\"Delhi high court decriminalizes homosexuality\"\n.\nwww.livemint.com\n. 2 July 2009\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Indian court decriminalises homosexuality in Delhi\"\n.\nthe Guardian\n. Associated Press. 2 July 2009\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\nNidal Al-Mughrabi.\n\"Delhi High Court overturns ban on gay sex\"\n.\nIN\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 10 July 2018\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\nMonalisa (11 December 2013).\n\"Policy\"\n.\nLivemint\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\nVenkatesan, J. (11 December 2013).\n\"Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC verdict decriminalising gay sex\"\n.\nThe Hindu\n.\nISSN\n \n0971-751X\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\na\nb\n\"Supreme Court agrees to hear petition on Section 376, refers matter to five-judge bench\"\n. 2 February 2016\n. Retrieved\n2 February\n2016\n.\n^\na\nb\nc\nd\n\"Right to Privacy Judgement\"\n(PDF)\n.\nSupreme Court of India\n. 24 August 2017. pp. 121,\n123–\n24. Archived from\nthe original\n(PDF)\non 28 August 2017.\n^\nBalakrishnan, Pulapre (25 August 2017).\n\"Endgame for Section 377?\"\n.\nThe Hindu\n.\nISSN\n \n0971-751X\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place\"\n.\nwww.firstpost.com\n. 29 August 2017\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Right to Privacy Judgment Makes Section 377 Very Hard to Defend, Says Judge Who Read It Down\"\n.\nThe Wire\n. Retrieved\n10 July\n2018\n.\n^\nJudgment\n, par. 156.\n^\n\"Supreme Court Scraps Section 377; 'Majoritarian Views Cannot Dictate Rights,' Says CJI\"\n.\nThe Wire\n. Retrieved\n6 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code\"\n.\nIndian Kanoon\n. Retrieved\n30 October\n2017\n.\n^\n\"The Indian Penal Code, 1860\"\n(PDF)\n.\nChandigarh District Court\n. Archived from\nthe original\n(PDF)\non 14 January 2007\n. Retrieved\n30 October\n2017\n.\n^\n\"HC pulls up government for homosexuality doublespeak\"\n.\nIndia Today\n. 26 September 2008.\n^\n\"Rare unity: Religious leaders come out in support of Section 377\"\n.\nDNAIndia.com\n. 12 December 2013\n. Retrieved\n30 December\n2017\n.\n^\n\"Section 377 and the law: What courts have said about homosexuality over time\"\n.\nhindustantimes.com\/\n. 5 February 2018\n. Retrieved\n24 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC\"\n.\noutlookindia.com\/\n. Retrieved\n24 September\n2018\n.\n^\nThomas, Shibu (29 September 2016).\n\"14% of those arrested under section 377 last year were minors\"\n.\nThe Times Of India\n. Retrieved\n4 November\n2017\n.\n^\nIndia: Repeal Colonial-Era Sodomy Law\n, report from\nHuman Rights Watch\n, 11 January 2006.\n^\n\"Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code\"\n.\nIndianKanoon.org\n. Retrieved\n30 December\n2017\n.\n^\n\"Archived copy\"\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 25 July 2009\n. Retrieved\n2 July\n2009\n.\n{{\ncite web\n}}\n:  CS1 maint: archived copy as title (\nlink\n)\n^\n\"Archived copy\"\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 2 February 2007\n. Retrieved\n5 February\n2007\n.\n{{\ncite web\n}}\n:  CS1 maint: archived copy as title (\nlink\n)\n^\nRamesh, Randeep (18 September 2006).\n\"India's literary elite call for anti-gay law to be scrapped\"\n.\nThe Guardian\n. London\n. Retrieved\n1 September\n2007\n.\n^\nKounteya Sinha (9 August 2008).\n\"Legalise homosexuality: Ramadoss\"\n.\nThe Times of India\n.\nArchived\nfrom the original on 25 October 2012\n. Retrieved\n2 July\n2009\n.\n^\nVikram Doctor (2 July 2008).\n\"Reverse swing: It may be an open affair for gays, lesbians\"\n.\nThe Economic Times\n. Retrieved\n2 July\n2009\n.\n^\nShibu Thomas (25 July 2008).\n\"Unnatural-sex law needs relook: Bombay HC\"\n.\nThe Times of India\n. Retrieved\n12 February\n2009\n.\n^\n\"Ban on gay sex violates international law\"\n.\nReuters\n. 12 December 2013. Archived from\nthe original\non 8 September 2018\n. Retrieved\n4 November\n2017\n.\n^\nRameshan, Radhika (13 December 2011).\n\"BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexuality\"\n.\nThe Telegraph\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 16 December 2013.\n^\nJyoti, Dhrubo (12 December 2013).\n\"Political Leaders React To Supreme Court Judgement On Sec 377\"\n.\nGaylaxy\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 11 May 2014\n. Retrieved\n3 November\n2017\n.\n^\n\"Homosexuality Is Unethical And Immoral: Samajwadi Party\"\n.\nNews 18\n. 12 December 2013\n. Retrieved\n3 November\n2017\n.\n^\n\"Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC\"\n.\nwww.outlookindia.com\n. Retrieved\n11 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Being gay is against Hindutva, it needs a cure: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy\"\n.\nThe Times of India\n. 10 July 2018\n. Retrieved\n15 September\n2020\n.\n^\n\"Section 377: Homosexuality against Hindutva, cannot celebrate it, says BJP leader Subramanian Swamy | India News\"\n.\nwww.timesnownews.com\n. 10 July 2018\n. Retrieved\n11 April\n2019\n.\n^\n\"Indian Union Muslim League opposes Supreme Court verdict, says it is against Indian culture\"\n.\nTimes of India\n.\n^\na\nb\nc\nd\nHans, Namit (14 February 2017).\n\"Increasing support for gay rights from BJP leaders. A rainbow in sight?\"\n.\nCatch News\n. Retrieved\n3 November\n2017\n.\n^\nRoy, Sandip (3 February 2016).\n\"The BJP And Its 377 Problem\"\n.\nHuffPost\n. Retrieved\n3 November\n2017\n.\n^\n\"BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC\"\n. 14 January 2015.\n^\n\"Statements of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on Section 377 exposes character of Congress leaders: Baba Ramdev\"\n.\nDNAIndia.com\n. 13 December 2013\n. Retrieved\n30 December\n2017\n.\n^\n\"Court should take relook at Section 377 after today's verdict: Chidambaram\"\n.\nUnited News of India\n. 24 August 2017\n. Retrieved\n4 November\n2017\n.\n^\nTiwari, Ravish (19 March 2016).\n\"Section 377: Unlike RSS, BJP shies away from taking a stand on homosexuality\"\n.\nThe Economic Times\n. Retrieved\n3 November\n2017\n.\n^\n\"Section 377: Where does each party stand?\"\n.\nThe News Minute\n. 29 November 2015\n. Retrieved\n3 November\n2017\n.\n^\na\nb\n\"Shashi Tharoor's bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha\"\n.\nIndianExpress.com\n. 18 December 2015\n. Retrieved\n30 December\n2017\n.\n^\n\"BJP thwarting Bill on gays: Tharoor\"\n.\nThe Hindu\n. 11 March 2016\n. Retrieved\n22 May\n2016\n.\n^\n\"Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights\"\n. CNN-IBN. Archived from\nthe original\non 5 July 2009\n. Retrieved\n2 July\n2009\n.\n^\nKian Ganz (2 July 2009).\n\"Lawyers Collective overturns anti-gay law\"\n.\nlegallyindia.com\n. Retrieved\n9 April\n2011\n.\n^\nSheela Bhatt (3 February 2006).\n\"Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC\"\n. Rediff News\n. Retrieved\n7 July\n2009\n.\n^\nShibu Thomas (20 May 2008).\n\"Delhi HC to take up PIL on LGBT rights\"\n.\nThe Times of India\n.\nArchived\nfrom the original on 25 October 2012\n. Retrieved\n7 July\n2009\n.\n^\n\"Section 377: The famous and fearless 5 who convinced SC - Times of India ►\"\n.\nThe Times of India\n. Retrieved\n26 September\n2018\n.\n^\nSchultz, Kai (2 June 2018).\n\"Gay in India, Where Progress Has Come Only With Risk\"\n.\nThe New York Times\n. Retrieved\n26 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Centre divided on punishment of homosexuality\"\n. DNA.\n^\n\"Delhi high court all set to rule on same-sex activity petition - Livemint\"\n.\nwww.Livemint.com\n. Retrieved\n30 December\n2017\n.\n^\n\"Moily signals rethink on anti-gay law\"\n.\nThe Times of India\n. 12 June 2009. Archived from\nthe original\non 25 October 2012\n. Retrieved\n7 July\n2009\n.\n^\na\nb\n\"Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex\"\n.\nCNN-IBN\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 5 July 2009\n. Retrieved\n2 July\n2009\n.\n^\n\"Gay sex decriminalised in India\"\n.\nBBC\n. 2 July 2009\n. Retrieved\n2 July\n2009\n.\n^\n\"Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi\"\n(PDF)\n. Delhi High Court. Archived from\nthe original\n(PDF)\non 26 August 2009\n. Retrieved\n2 July\n2009\n.\n^\na\nb\n\"Verdict reserved on appeals in gay sex case\"\n.\nThe Hindu\n. New Delhi, India. 27 March 2012\n. Retrieved\n3 October\n2012\n.\n^\nShesadri, Shekha; et al.\n\"Mental Health Professionals--Written Submissions\"\n(PDF)\n. Retrieved\n22 March\n2021\n.\n^\n\"United Nations Criticizes SC Verdict on Sec 377\"\n.\nenewspaper of India\n. 12 December 2013. Archived from\nthe original\non 21 February 2014\n. Retrieved\n22 March\n2021\n.\n^\n\"UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for equality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals\"\n.\nThe Economic Times\n. 12 December 2013. Archived from\nthe original\non 16 December 2013\n. Retrieved\n22 March\n2021\n.\n^\n\"Rahul Gandhi too wants Section 377 to go, supports gay rights\"\n.\nIndia Today Online New Delhi\n. 12 December 2013\n. Retrieved\n22 March\n2021\n.\n^\nPress Trust of India (22 July 2014).\n\"No plans to amend Section 377 till SC decision: Modi govt\"\n.\nThe Indian Express\n. Retrieved\n22 March\n2021\n.\n^\nRatnam, Dhamini (14 January 2015).\n\"BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC\"\n.\nMint\n. Retrieved\n22 March\n2021\n.\n^\n\"Legal experts on 377 and Right to Privacy\"\n. 24 August 2017\n. Retrieved\n24 August\n2017\n.\n^\n\"The Hindu on 377 and Right to Privacy\"\n.\nThe Hindu\n. 25 August 2017.\n^\n\"India Just Decriminalized Gay Sex\"\n.\nBuzzFeed News\n. Retrieved\n6 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"Section 377 Verdict By Supreme Court Tomorrow: 10-Point Guide\"\n.\nNDTV.com\n. Retrieved\n5 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"One India, Equal In Love: Supreme Court Ends Section 377\"\n.\nNDTV.com\n. Retrieved\n6 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"India decriminalises gay sex in landmark verdict\"\n.\nwww.aljazeera.com\n. Retrieved\n6 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"\n'Gay sex is not a crime,' says Supreme Court in historic judgment\"\n.\nThe Times of India\n. Retrieved\n6 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. [2018] INSC 746 (6 September 2018)\"\n. Legal Information Institute of India\n. Retrieved\n1 April\n2020\n.\n^\n\"From Canada to India, 'Valiant Five' Have Secured a Marginalised Group's Rights\"\n.\nThe Wire\n. Retrieved\n12 September\n2018\n.\n^\n\"365 without 377 - Adele Tulli\"\n.\nwww.queerdocumentaries.com\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 14 May 2019\n. Retrieved\n14 May\n2019\n.\n^\nPaternò, Cristiana (11 February 2019).\n\"Adele Tulli: \"Italy is a lab for gender\"\n\"\n.\nnews.cinecitta.com\n. Archived from\nthe original\non 14 May 2019\n. Retrieved\n14 May\n2019\n.\nMcGoldrick, Dominic (2019). \"Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India\".\nHuman Rights Law Review\n.\n19\n(1):\n173–\n185.\ndoi\n:\n10.1093\/hrlr\/ngy041\n.\nSanders, Douglas E. (2009).\n\"377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia\"\n.\nAsian Journal of Comparative Law\n.\n4\n:\n1–\n49.\ndoi\n:\n10.1017\/S2194607800000417\n.\nS2CID\n \n154403178\n.\nMale-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in South Asia: an analysis of the politico-legal framework\n, Arvind Narrain & Brototi Dutta, 2006.\nOfficial website of the Naz Foundation of (India) Trust\n(archived)\nSection 377 – Indian Penal Code, 1860\n(Mobile)","attrs_markdown":"[Jump to content](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#bodyContent)\n\nMain menu\n\nMain menu\n\nmove to sidebar\n\nhide\n\nNavigation\n\n- [Main page](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Main_Page \"Visit the main page [z]\")\n- [Contents](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Contents \"Guides to browsing Wikipedia\")\n- [Current events](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Portal:Current_events \"Articles related to current events\")\n- [Random article](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:Random \"Visit a randomly selected article [x]\")\n- [About Wikipedia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:About \"Learn about Wikipedia and how it works\")\n- [Contact us](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Contact_us \"How to contact Wikipedia\")\n\nContribute\n\n- [Help](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Help:Contents \"Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia\")\n- [Learn to edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Help:Introduction \"Learn how to edit Wikipedia\")\n- [Community portal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Community_portal \"The hub for editors\")\n- [Recent changes](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:RecentChanges \"A list of recent changes to Wikipedia [r]\")\n- [Upload file](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard \"Add images or other media for use on Wikipedia\")\n- [Special pages](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:SpecialPages \"A list of all special pages [q]\")\n\n[![](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/static\/images\/icons\/enwiki-25.svg) ![Wikipedia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/static\/images\/mobile\/copyright\/wikipedia-wordmark-en-25.svg) ![The Free Encyclopedia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/static\/images\/mobile\/copyright\/wikipedia-tagline-en-25.svg)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Main_Page)\n\n[Search](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:Search \"Search Wikipedia [f]\")\n\nAppearance\n\n- [Donate](https:\/\/donate.wikimedia.org\/?wmf_source=donate&wmf_medium=sidebar&wmf_campaign=en.wikipedia.org&uselang=en)\n- [Create account](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount&returnto=Section+377 \"You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory\")\n- [Log in](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Section+377 \"You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [o]\")\n\nPersonal tools\n\n- [Donate](https:\/\/donate.wikimedia.org\/?wmf_source=donate&wmf_medium=sidebar&wmf_campaign=en.wikipedia.org&uselang=en)\n- [Create account](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount&returnto=Section+377 \"You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory\")\n- [Log in](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Section+377 \"You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [o]\")\n\n## Contents\nmove to sidebar\n\nhide\n\n- [(Top)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377)\n- [1 History](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#History)\n  Toggle History subsection\n  - [1\\.1 Where Section 377 remains in force](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Where_Section_377_remains_in_force)\n- [2 India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#India)\n  Toggle India subsection\n  - [2\\.1 Text](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Text)\n  - [2\\.2 Public perception](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Public_perception)\n    - [2\\.2.1 Support](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Support)\n    - [2\\.2.2 Opposition and criticism](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Opposition_and_criticism)\n  - [2\\.3 View of political parties](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#View_of_political_parties)\n    - [2\\.3.1 Opposition to repeal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Opposition_to_repeal)\n    - [2\\.3.2 Support of repeal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Support_of_repeal)\n  - [2\\.4 Legislative action](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Legislative_action)\n  - [2\\.5 Judicial action](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Judicial_action)\n    - [2\\.5.1 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#2009_Naz_Foundation_V._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi)\n    - [2\\.5.2 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#2013_Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_v._Naz_Foundation)\n    - [2\\.5.3 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#2016_Naz_Foundation_Curative_Petition)\n    - [2\\.5.4 Right to Privacy verdict](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Right_to_Privacy_verdict)\n    - [2\\.5.5 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#2018_Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India)\n  - [2\\.6 Documentary](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Documentary)\n- [3 See also](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#See_also)\n- [4 References](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#References)\n- [5 Further reading](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Further_reading)\n- [6 External links](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#External_links)\n\nToggle the table of contents\n\n# Section 377\n9 languages\n\n- [বাংলা](https:\/\/bn.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A7%A9%E0%A7%AD%E0%A7%AD \"সেকশন ৩৭৭ – Bangla\")\n- [Čeština](https:\/\/cs.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%C4%8Cl%C3%A1nek_377 \"Článek 377 – Czech\")\n- [עברית](https:\/\/he.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%D7%A1%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A3_377 \"סעיף 377 – Hebrew\")\n- [Italiano](https:\/\/it.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sezione_377 \"Sezione 377 – Italian\")\n- [ಕನ್ನಡ](https:\/\/kn.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%E0%B2%AD%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%B0%E0%B2%A4%E0%B3%80%E0%B2%AF_%E0%B2%A6%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%A1_%E0%B2%B8%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%B9%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%A4%E0%B3%86_%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%B2%E0%B2%82_%E0%B3%A9%E0%B3%AD%E0%B3%AD \"ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ ೩೭೭ – Kannada\")\n- [मराठी](https:\/\/mr.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A5%A9%E0%A5%AD%E0%A5%AD_\\(%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A1_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE\\) \"कलम ३७७ (भारतीय दंड संहिता) – Marathi\")\n- [ਪੰਜਾਬੀ](https:\/\/pa.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%E0%A8%A7%E0%A8%BE%E0%A8%B0%E0%A8%BE_377 \"ਧਾਰਾ 377 – Punjabi\")\n- [Simple English](https:\/\/simple.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377 \"Section 377 – Simple English\")\n- [తెలుగు](https:\/\/te.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%E0%B0%B8%E0%B1%86%E0%B0%95%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%B7%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%8D_377 \"సెక్షన్ 377 – Telugu\")\n\n[Edit links](https:\/\/www.wikidata.org\/wiki\/Special:EntityPage\/Q7444605#sitelinks-wikipedia \"Edit interlanguage links\")\n\n- [Article](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377 \"View the content page [c]\")\n- [Talk](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Section_377 \"Discuss improvements to the content page [t]\")\n\nEnglish\n\n- [Read](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377)\n- [Edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit \"Edit this page [e]\")\n- [View history](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=history \"Past revisions of this page [h]\")\n\nTools\n\nTools\n\nmove to sidebar\n\nhide\n\nActions\n\n- [Read](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377)\n- [Edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit \"Edit this page [e]\")\n- [View history](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=history)\n\nGeneral\n\n- [What links here](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:WhatLinksHere\/Section_377 \"List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [j]\")\n- [Related changes](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:RecentChangesLinked\/Section_377 \"Recent changes in pages linked from this page [k]\")\n- [Upload file](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard \"Upload files [u]\")\n- [Permanent link](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&oldid=1342787063 \"Permanent link to this revision of this page\")\n- [Page information](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=info \"More information about this page\")\n- [Cite this page](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Section_377&id=1342787063&wpFormIdentifier=titleform \"Information on how to cite this page\")\n- [Get shortened URL](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:UrlShortener&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSection_377)\n\nPrint\/export\n\n- [Download as PDF](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:DownloadAsPdf&page=Section_377&action=show-download-screen \"Download this page as a PDF file\")\n- [Printable version](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&printable=yes \"Printable version of this page [p]\")\n\nIn other projects\n\n- [Wikidata item](https:\/\/www.wikidata.org\/wiki\/Special:EntityPage\/Q7444605 \"Structured data on this page hosted by Wikidata [g]\")\n\nAppearance\n\nmove to sidebar\n\nhide\n\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\n\nLaw criminalizing homosexuality in former British colonies\n\n**Section 377** is a [British colonial](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Empire \"British Empire\") [Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Penal_code \"Penal code\") provision that [criminalized](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Criminalization \"Criminalization\") all [sexual acts](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_sexual_activity \"Human sexual activity\") \"against the order of nature\". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in [oral](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Oral_sex \"Oral sex\") and [anal sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Anal_sex \"Anal sex\") along with [homosexual](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") activity. As per a Supreme Court of [India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/India \"India\") judgement since 2018, the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years' imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize [third gender](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Third_gender \"Third gender\") people, such as the *[apwint](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Apwint \"Apwint\")* in [Myanmar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Myanmar \"Myanmar\").[\\[1\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1) In 2018, then [British Prime Minister](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_prime_minister \"British prime minister\") [Theresa May](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Theresa_May \"Theresa May\") acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.[\\[2\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2)\n\n## History\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=1 \"Edit section: History\")\\]\n\nAlthough the act of sodomy was sometimes prosecuted in England under British [common law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Common_law \"Common law\"), it was first [codified](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Codification_\\(law\\) \"Codification (law)\") in the [British empire](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Empire \"British Empire\") as Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") as \"carnal intercourse against the order of nature\" in 1860. Section 377 was then exported to other colonies and even to England itself, providing the legal model for the act of '[buggery](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Buggery \"Buggery\")' in the [Offences Against the Person Act](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Offences_Against_the_Person_Act_1861 \"Offences Against the Person Act 1861\") (1861).[\\[2\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2) Alok Gupta wrote for a [Human Rights Watch](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_Rights_Watch \"Human Rights Watch\") report in 2008 that the British intended for the code to prevent [Christian](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Christians \"Christians\") colonial subjects from \"[corruption](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Corruption \"Corruption\")\", and to condition colonized subjects undergoing [Christianization](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Christianization \"Christianization\") to conform to colonial authority.[\\[3\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-3) This consequently had a big impact on [colonial-era sexuality in India.](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexuality_in_India#Colonial-era \"Sexuality in India\")\n\nAlthough Section 377 did not explicitly include the word *homosexual*, it has been used to prosecute [homosexual](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") activity. The provision was introduced by authorities in the [Raj](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Raj \"British Raj\") in 1862 as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\") and functioned as the [legal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Law \"Law\") impetus behind the [criminalization](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Criminalization \"Criminalization\") of what was referred to as, \"unnatural offences\" throughout the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number.[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)[\\[5\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1-5)[\\[1\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1)\n\nIn [Singapore](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Singapore \"Singapore\"), a similar law called [Section 377A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377A_\\(Singapore\\) \"Section 377A (Singapore)\") of the Singapore Penal Code was introduced in 1938 by the colonial government that had also criminalized sex between men. In 2022, then Prime Minister [Lee Hsien Loong](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lee_Hsien_Loong \"Lee Hsien Loong\") had announced that the provision would be repealed.[\\[6\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:83-6)[\\[7\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:84-7) It was repealed on 29 November 2022 when the bill passed in Parliament.\\[*[citation needed](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Citation_needed \"Wikipedia:Citation needed\")*\\]\n\n### Where Section 377 remains in force\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=2 \"Edit section: Where Section 377 remains in force\")\\]\n\nAlthough most colonies have since gained [independence](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Independence \"Independence\") through [statehood](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/State_\\(polity\\) \"State (polity)\") since Section 377 was implemented, it remains in the [penal codes](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Penal_codes \"Penal codes\") of the following countries, all of which were formerly a part of the [British Empire](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Empire \"British Empire\"):\n\n- [![Bangladesh](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/f\/f9\/Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg\/40px-Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg.png)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bangladesh \"Bangladesh\") Bangladesh[\\[8\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8)\n- [![Myanmar](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/8\/8c\/Flag_of_Myanmar.svg\/40px-Flag_of_Myanmar.svg.png)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Myanmar \"Myanmar\") Myanmar[\\[8\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8)\n- [![Pakistan](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/3\/32\/Flag_of_Pakistan.svg\/40px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pakistan \"Pakistan\") Pakistan[\\[8\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8)\n- [![Sri Lanka](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/1\/11\/Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg\/40px-Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg.png)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sri_Lanka \"Sri Lanka\") Sri Lanka (as [Section 365](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code \"Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code\"))[\\[8\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8)\n\n## India\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=3 \"Edit section: India\")\\]\n\n**Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code** was a section of the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") introduced in 1861 during the [British rule of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_rule_of_India \"British rule of India\"). Modeled on the [Buggery Act 1533](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Buggery_Act_1533 \"Buggery Act 1533\"), it made sexual activities \"against the order of nature\" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual [homosexual sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") between adults was unconstitutional, \"irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary\",[\\[9\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-9) but that Section 377 remained in force relating to sex with [minors](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Minor_\\(law\\) \"Minor (law)\"), [non-consensual](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexual_consent \"Sexual consent\") sexual acts, and [bestiality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bestiality \"Bestiality\").[\\[10\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-10) Section 377 was fully replaced along with the rest of the Indian Penal Code by the [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita \"Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita\")[\\[11\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-11) on 1 July 2024.\n\nPortions of the section were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to [gay sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gay_sex \"Gay sex\") by the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") in July 2009.[\\[12\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-12)[\\[13\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-13)[\\[14\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-14) That judgement was overturned by the [Supreme Court of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") (SC) on 11 December 2013 in *[Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_vs._Naz_Foundation \"Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation\")*. The Court held that amending or repealing section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.[\\[15\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-15)[\\[16\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-16) On 6 February 2016, a three-member bench of the Court reviewed curative petitions submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") and others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench.[\\[17\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17)\n\nOn 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution in the landmark *[Puttaswamy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Justice_K._S._Puttaswamy_\\(Retd.\\)_and_Anr._vs_Union_Of_India_And_Ors. \"Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.\")* judgement. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the [fundamental rights](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Fundamental_rights \"Fundamental rights\") and that the rights of the [LGBT](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT \"LGBT\") population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377.[\\[19\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-19)[\\[20\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-20)[\\[21\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-21)\n\nIn January 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 *Naz Foundation* judgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in *[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India \"Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\")* that Section 377 was unconstitutional \"in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex\".[\\[22\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-22)[\\[23\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-23) The judgment was given by a five-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India [Dipak Misra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dipak_Misra \"Dipak Misra\"), Justices [R. F. Nariman](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman \"Rohinton Fali Nariman\"), [D. Y. Chandrachud](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud \"Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud\"), [A. M. Khanwilkar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar \"Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar\") and [Indu Malhotra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indu_Malhotra \"Indu Malhotra\").\\[*[citation needed](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Citation_needed \"Wikipedia:Citation needed\")*\\]\n\n### Text\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=4 \"Edit section: Text\")\\]\n\n> **377\\. Unnatural offences**: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. **Explanation**: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.[\\[24\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-24)[\\[25\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-25)\n\n### Public perception\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=5 \"Edit section: Public perception\")\\]\n\nMain article: [Homosexuality in India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality_in_India \"Homosexuality in India\")\n\n[![](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/0\/06\/Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg\/250px-Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg)\n\nParticipant carrying a poster on Section 377 during [Bhubaneswar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bhubaneswar \"Bhubaneswar\") Pride Parade\n\n#### Support\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=6 \"Edit section: Support\")\\]\n\nIn 2008 Additional [Solicitor General](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Solicitor_General_of_India \"Solicitor General of India\") PP Malhotra said: \"[Homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. \\[Decriminalising homosexuality\\] may create \\[a\\] breach of peace. If it is allowed then \\[the\\] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society.\" This view was shared by the Home Ministry.[\\[26\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-26)\n\n11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it \"the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other's religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment\" The *Daily News and Analysis* article added that Baba [Ramdev](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ramdev \"Ramdev\"), India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not \"turn homosexual\", stated he could \"cure\" homosexuality through yoga and called it \"a bad addiction\".[\\[27\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-27)\n\n#### Opposition and criticism\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=7 \"Edit section: Opposition and criticism\")\\]\n\nThe [Ministry of Health and Family Welfare](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ministry_of_Health_and_Family_Welfare \"Ministry of Health and Family Welfare\") opposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti-[HIV\/AIDS](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/HIV\/AIDS \"HIV\/AIDS\") efforts.[\\[28\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-28)[\\[29\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-29) According to the [NCRB](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/National_Crime_Records_Bureau \"National Crime Records Bureau\"), in 2015, 1,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women.[\\[30\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-30) [Human Rights Watch](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_Rights_Watch \"Human Rights Watch\") also argued that the law had been used to harass [HIV\/AIDS](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/AIDS \"AIDS\") prevention efforts, as well as [sex workers](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sex_worker \"Sex worker\"), [homosexuals](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuals \"Homosexuals\"), and other groups at risk of the disease,[\\[31\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-31) even though those found guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that relate to Section 377 may face a life sentence under a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC.[\\[32\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-32) The [People's Union for Civil Liberties](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/People%27s_Union_for_Civil_Liberties \"People's Union for Civil Liberties\") has published two reports on the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[\\[33\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-33) and, in particular, [transsexuals](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Transsexual \"Transsexual\") in India.[\\[34\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-34)\n\nIn 2006, Section 377 came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[\\[35\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-35) most prominently [Vikram Seth](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Vikram_Seth \"Vikram Seth\"). The law subsequently drew even more criticism from several ministers, most prominently [Anbumani Ramadoss](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Anbumani_Ramadoss \"Anbumani Ramadoss\")[\\[36\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Mexico_AIDS_conference-36) and [Oscar Fernandes](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Oscar_Fernandes \"Oscar Fernandes\").[\\[37\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-37) In 2008, a judge of the [Bombay High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bombay_High_Court \"Bombay High Court\") also called for the scrapping of the law.[\\[38\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-38)\n\nThe [United Nations](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_Nations \"United Nations\") also said that the ban violated international law. [United Nations human rights](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council \"United Nations Human Rights Council\") chief [Navi Pillay](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Navi_Pillay \"Navi Pillay\") stated that \"Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified\", and that the decision \"represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights.\", voicing hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure.[\\[39\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-39)\n\n### View of political parties\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=8 \"Edit section: View of political parties\")\\]\n\n#### Opposition to repeal\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=9 \"Edit section: Opposition to repeal\")\\]\n\n[Rajnath Singh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rajnath_Singh \"Rajnath Singh\"), a member of the ruling party [BJP](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Janata_Party \"Bharatiya Janata Party\") and the Home Minister, is on record shortly after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is \"unambiguously\" in favour of the law, also claiming that \"We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported.\"[\\[40\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-40) [Yogi Adityanath](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Yogi_Adityanath \"Yogi Adityanath\"), BJP [MP](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Member_of_parliament,_Lok_Sabha \"Member of parliament, Lok Sabha\"), welcomed the 2013 verdict and will \"oppose any move to decriminalise homosexuality.\"[\\[41\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0a-41)\n\nThe [Samajwadi Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Samajwadi_Party \"Samajwadi Party\") made it clear that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality \"unethical and immoral\".[\\[42\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-42) [Ram Gopal Yadav](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ram_Gopal_Yadav \"Ram Gopal Yadav\") stated that they support the Supreme Court decision as \"It is completely against the culture of our nation.\"[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)\n\nThe Congress party-led [UPA government](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_Progressive_Alliance \"United Progressive Alliance\") also supported the law during the initial [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") case, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalized.[\\[43\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-43)\n\n[Bharatiya Janata Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Janata_Party \"Bharatiya Janata Party\") leader [Subramanian Swamy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Subramanian_Swamy \"Subramanian Swamy\") said that homosexuality was not a normal thing and was against [Hindutva](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hindutva \"Hindutva\").[\\[44\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-44) He went on to say that it was \"a danger to our national security\" and that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. He added that \"there is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll be a cover for [pedophiles](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pedophilia \"Pedophilia\") and a huge rise in HIV cases.\"[\\[45\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-45)\n\nAfter the 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court, the [Indian Union Muslim League](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Union_Muslim_League \"Indian Union Muslim League\") continued to oppose decriminalisation, saying 'homosexuality is against Indian culture'.[\\[46\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-46)\n\n#### Support of repeal\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=10 \"Edit section: Support of repeal\")\\]\n\nFormer Finance Minister and BJP member [Arun Jaitley](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Arun_Jaitley \"Arun Jaitley\") said that \"Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalized consensual sex between gay adults\" and \"When millions of people the world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed.\"[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\\[48\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-48) BJP spokesperson [Shaina NC](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shaina_NC \"Shaina NC\") said her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. \"We are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.\"[\\[49\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-49)\n\nIn December 2013, [Indian National Congress](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_National_Congress \"Indian National Congress\") President [Rahul Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rahul_Gandhi \"Rahul Gandhi\") came out in support of LGBT rights and said that \"every individual had the right to choose\". He also said \"These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, freedom of expression. So let that be. I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement\", he said. The LGBT rights movement in India was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections.[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47) [Sonia Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sonia_Gandhi \"Sonia Gandhi\") also shared a similar view.[\\[50\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-50) Senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister [P. Chidambaram](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/P._Chidambaram \"P. Chidambaram\") stated that the 2013 *Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation* judgement must be quickly reversed.[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) He also said that \"Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck down or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement by Justice AP Shah.\"[\\[51\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-51)\n\nThe [RSS](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh \"Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh\") revised its position, the leader [Dattatreya Hosabale](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dattatreya_Hosabale \"Dattatreya Hosabale\") reportedly saying, \"no criminalisation, but no glorification either.\"[\\[52\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-52) RSS chief [Mohan Bhagwat](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mohan_Bhagwat \"Mohan Bhagwat\") also came out in support of the LGBTQIA+ community stating that they should be accepted as an integral part of society. After the 2013 verdict, the [Aam Aadmi Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aam_Aadmi_Party \"Aam Aadmi Party\") put on their website:\n\n> The [Aam Aadmi party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aam_Aadmi_Party \"Aam Aadmi Party\") is disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Section 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") on the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the police. This not only violates the human rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will also step in to repeal this archaic law.[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)\n\n[Brinda Karat](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Brinda_Karat \"Brinda Karat\") of the [Communist Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Communist_Party_of_India_\\(Marxist\\) \"Communist Party of India (Marxist)\") said the SC order was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is wrong.[\\[53\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-53)\n\n[Shivanand Tiwari](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shivanand_Tiwari \"Shivanand Tiwari\"), leader of [Janata Dal United](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Janata_Dal_\\(United\\) \"Janata Dal (United)\"), did not support the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_court \"Supreme court\") decision, calling [homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") practical and constitutional. He added that \"This happens in society and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Court trying to stop them?\"[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)\n\n[Derek O'Brien](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Derek_O%27Brien_\\(politician\\) \"Derek O'Brien (politician)\") of the [Trinamool Congress](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/All_India_Trinamool_Congress \"All India Trinamool Congress\") said that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal world we live in today.[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)\n\n### Legislative action\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=11 \"Edit section: Legislative action\")\\]\n\nOn 18 December 2015, [Lok Sabha](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lok_Sabha \"Lok Sabha\") member [Shashi Tharoor](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shashi_Tharoor \"Shashi Tharoor\") of the [Indian National Congress](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_National_Congress \"Indian National Congress\") introduced a [private member's bill](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Private_member%27s_bill \"Private member's bill\") to replace Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") and decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24.[\\[54\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54) For his part, Tharoor expressed surprise at the bill's rejection at this early stage. He said that he did not have time to rally support and that he will attempt to reintroduce the bill.[\\[54\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54)\n\nIn March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's bill to decriminalize [homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") but was voted down for the second time.[\\[55\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-55)\n\n### Judicial action\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=12 \"Edit section: Judicial action\")\\]\n\n#### 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=13 \"Edit section: 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\")\\]\n\n[![](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/a\/a8\/Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf\/page1-250px-Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf.jpg)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP\\(C\\)_No.7455_2001.pdf)\n\nThe judgement of the [High Court of Delhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/High_Court_of_Delhi \"High Court of Delhi\") of 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults\n\nMain article: [Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_v._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi \"Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\")\n\nThe movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by [AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/AIDS_Bhedbhav_Virodhi_Andolan \"AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan\") in 1991. Their historic publication *Less than Gay: A Citizen's Report*, spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. [A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India'](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20120406222219\/http:\/\/archive.epw.in\/data\/PDF\/001189_EPW_3_2_1996_Vol_XXXI_No_5\/COMMENTARY_Gay%20Rights%20in%20India.pdf) chronicles this early history. As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the [Naz Foundation (India) Trust](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\"), an activist group, which filed a [public interest litigation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Public_interest_litigation \"Public interest litigation\") in the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") in 2001, seeking the legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[\\[56\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Chronology-56) The [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") worked with a legal team from the [Lawyers Collective](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lawyers_Collective \"Lawyers Collective\") to engage in court.[\\[57\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-57) In 2003, the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners, had no *[locus standi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Locus_standi \"Locus standi\")* in the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") in the absence of a petitioner with standing.\n\n[Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the [High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/High_court \"High court\") to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit.[\\[58\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-58) Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called 'Voices Against 377', which supported the demand to 'read down' section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.[\\[59\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-59)\n\nThere was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with [Navtej Singh Johar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Navtej_Singh_Johar \"Navtej Singh Johar\") and drew from his personal experiences while protesting. [Ritu Dalmia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ritu_Dalmia \"Ritu Dalmia\") also demonstrated keen activism. [Aman Nath](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aman_Nath \"Aman Nath\"), a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Section 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg died.[\\[60\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-60) Ayesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent e-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out about her sexuality. Over time, she gained the courage to come out and challenge Section 377.[\\[61\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-61)\n\nIn May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\"), but the Government was undecided on its position, with The [Ministry of Home Affairs](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ministry_of_home_affairs \"Ministry of home affairs\") maintaining a contradictory position to that of the Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to [homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\").[\\[62\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-62) On 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move.[\\[63\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-63) On 12 June 2009, India's new law minister [Veerappa Moily](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Veerappa_Moily \"Veerappa Moily\") agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.[\\[64\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-64)\n\nEventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section,[\\[65\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65) legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults.[\\[66\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-BBC1-66) The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice [Ajit Prakash Shah](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ajit_Prakash_Shah \"Ajit Prakash Shah\") and Justice [S. Muralidhar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S._Muralidhar \"S. Muralidhar\") said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.\n\nThe two-judge bench went on to hold that:\n\n> If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as 'deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.\n> \n> Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination.\n> \n> This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.[\\[67\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Judgement-67)\n\nThe court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.[\\[65\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65)\n\nA batch of appeals were filed with the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\"), challenging the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") judgment. On 27 March 2012, the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_court \"Supreme court\") reserved verdict on these.[\\[68\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68) After initially opposing the judgement, the [Attorney General](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Attorney_General_of_India \"Attorney General of India\") [G. E. Vahanvati](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/G._E._Vahanvati \"G. E. Vahanvati\") decided not to file any appeal against the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\")'s verdict, stating, \"insofar as \\[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\\] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private \\[before it was struck down by the High Court\\] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers.\"[\\[68\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68)\n\n#### 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=14 \"Edit section: 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation\")\\]\n\nMain article: [Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_vs._Naz_Foundation \"Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation\")\n\nSuresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-judge [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") bench consisting of [G. S. Singhvi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/G._S._Singhvi \"G. S. Singhvi\") and [S. J. Mukhopadhaya](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S._J._Mukhopadhaya \"S. J. Mukhopadhaya\") overturned the Delhi High Court case *[Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_v._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi \"Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\")* and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.\n\nThis ruling was despite the urging of a group of mental health professionals who filed a collection of written submissions to the Supreme court with commentary on the case grounded in their expert opinion[\\[69\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-69) The mental health professionals noted that they frequently see LGBT or queer clients who suffer significant psychological distress—depression, anxiety, and more—due to the threat and social censure posed by IPC 377. These mental health professionals argued that IPC 377 causes LGBT and queer individuals to feel that they are \"criminals\", and that this status is a significant part of their psychological distress.\n\nThe United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay[\\[70\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-70) voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it \"a significant step backwards\" for the country. In the wake of [Indian Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\")'s ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief [Ban Ki-moon](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ban_Ki-moon \"Ban Ki-moon\") stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals.[\\[71\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-71)\n\nSoon after the judgement, [Sonia Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sonia_Gandhi \"Sonia Gandhi\"), President of the then ruling [Congress party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Congress_party \"Congress party\"), asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-president, [Rahul Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rahul_Gandhi \"Rahul Gandhi\") also wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights.[\\[72\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-72) In July 2014, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju in the [BJP](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Janata_Party \"Bharatiya Janata Party\") led [Central government](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Central_government \"Central government\") told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a decision regarding Section 377 of IPC can be taken only after pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court.[\\[73\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-73) However, on 13 January 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, appearing on NDTV, stated, \"We \\[BJP\\] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.\"[\\[74\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-74)\n\n#### 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=15 \"Edit section: 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition\")\\]\n\nOn 2 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") and others came for hearing in the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_court \"Supreme court\"). The three-member bench headed by the [Chief Justice of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chief_Justice_of_India \"Chief Justice of India\") [T. S. Thakur](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/T._S._Thakur \"T. S. Thakur\") said that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench.[\\[17\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17)\n\n#### Right to Privacy verdict\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=16 \"Edit section: Right to Privacy verdict\")\\]\n\nOn 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the [Right to Privacy verdict](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Right_to_Privacy_verdict \"Right to Privacy verdict\"). In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a \"discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy.\" In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, [Justice Chandrachud](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud \"Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud\") (who authored for Justices [Khehar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Jagdish_Singh_Khehar \"Jagdish Singh Khehar\"), [Agarwal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rajesh_Kumar_Agrawal \"Rajesh Kumar Agrawal\"), [Abdul Nazeer](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S._Abdul_Nazeer \"S. Abdul Nazeer\") and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. [Justice Kaul](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sanjay_Kishan_Kaul \"Sanjay Kishan Kaul\") agreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the [Constitution of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Constitution_of_India \"Constitution of India\").[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18)\n\n> Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18)  \n>    \n>  ...Their rights are not \"so-called\" but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine. They inhere in the right to life. They dwell in privacy and dignity. They constitute the essence of liberty and freedom. Sexual orientation is an essential component of identity. Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18)\n\nHowever, as the curative petition (challenging Section 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts have suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the ground-work for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the [High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/High_court \"High court\"), thereby decriminalizing [homosexual sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexual_sexual_practices \"Homosexual sexual practices\").[\\[75\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-75)[\\[76\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-76)\n\n#### 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=17 \"Edit section: 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\")\\]\n\nMain article: [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India \"Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\")\n\nIn 2018, after decades of [grassroots](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Grassroots \"Grassroots\") activism, the application of [section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\") to private consensual sex between men was ruled unconstitutional by India's [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\"), effectively [decriminalizing](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Decriminalizing \"Decriminalizing\") homosexual activity.[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\\[77\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-77)\n\nThe five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of chief justice [Dipak Misra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dipak_Misra \"Dipak Misra\") and justices [Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud \"Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud\"), [Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar \"Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar\"), [Indu Malhotra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indu_Malhotra \"Indu Malhotra\"), and [Rohinton Fali Nariman](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman \"Rohinton Fali Nariman\") started hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The [Union Government](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Government_of_India \"Government of India\") did not take a position on the issue and left it to the \"wisdom of the court\" to decide on Section 377. The petitioners invoked the right to [sexual privacy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexual_and_reproductive_health_and_rights \"Sexual and reproductive health and rights\"), [dignity](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dignity \"Dignity\"), right against discrimination and freedom of expression to argue against the constitutionality of Section 377. After hearing the petitioners' plea for four days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018.[\\[78\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-78) Announcing the verdict, the court reversed its own 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the [IPC](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act.[\\[79\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-79)[\\[80\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-80) In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law \"irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible.\"[\\[81\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-81)[\\[82\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-82)\n\n[*The Wire*](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Wire_\\(India\\) \"The Wire (India)\") drew parallels between the supreme court's judgement and [Privy Council](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Privy_Council_Office_\\(Canada\\) \"Privy Council Office (Canada)\")'s 1929 verdict in *[Edwards vs Canada (AG)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Edwards_v_Canada_\\(AG\\) \"Edwards v Canada (AG)\")* that allowed for Women to sit in the [Senate of Canada](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Senate_of_Canada \"Senate of Canada\"). It compared the petitioners to the Canadian [*Famous Five*](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Famous_Five_\\(Canada\\) \"The Famous Five (Canada)\").[\\[83\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-auto-83)\n\n### Documentary\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=18 \"Edit section: Documentary\")\\]\n\nIn 2011, Italian film maker Adele Tulli, made *365 Without 377* which followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in [Bombay](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bombay \"Bombay\") celebrations.[\\[84\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-84) It won the [Turin](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Turin \"Turin\") LGBT Film Fest award in 2011.[\\[85\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-85)\n\n## See also\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=19 \"Edit section: See also\")\\]\n\n- [LGBT rights in Bangladesh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Bangladesh \"LGBT rights in Bangladesh\")\n- [LGBT rights in India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_India \"LGBT rights in India\")\n- [LGBT rights in Myanmar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Myanmar \"LGBT rights in Myanmar\")\n- [LGBT rights in Pakistan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Pakistan \"LGBT rights in Pakistan\")\n- [LGBT rights in Sri Lanka](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Sri_Lanka \"LGBT rights in Sri Lanka\")\n  - [Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code \"Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code\")\n- [Sodomy law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sodomy_law \"Sodomy law\")\n- [LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations \"LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations\")\n\n## References\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=20 \"Edit section: References\")\\]\n\n1. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-1)\n   Chua, Lynette J.; Gilbert, David (2016). \"State violence, human-rights violations and the case of apwint of Myanmar\". *Gender, Violence and the State in Asia*. Taylor & Francis. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781317325949](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781317325949 \"Special:BookSources\/9781317325949\")\n   \n   .\n2. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-1)\n   Rao, Rahul (2020). *Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality*. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–9\\. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9780190865535](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9780190865535 \"Special:BookSources\/9780190865535\")\n   \n   .\n3. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-3)**\n   Gupta, Alok (2008). *This Alien Legacy: The Origins of \"Anti-Sodomy\" Laws in British Colonialism*. Human Rights Watch. p. 16. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781564324191](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781564324191 \"Special:BookSources\/9781564324191\")\n   \n   .\n4. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-3) [***e***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-4)\n   Stoddard, Eve; Collins, John (2016). *Social and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies*. Taylor & Francis. p. 135. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781317509776](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781317509776 \"Special:BookSources\/9781317509776\")\n   \n   .\n5. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1_5-0)**\n   McCann, Hannah; Monaghan, Whitney (2020). *Queer Theory Now*. Red Globe Press. p. 163. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781352007510](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781352007510 \"Special:BookSources\/9781352007510\")\n   \n   .\n6. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:83_6-0)**\n   [\"NDR 2022: Govt to repeal Section 377A, amend Constitution to protect marriage definition from legal challenges\"](https:\/\/www.todayonline.com\/singapore\/ndr-2022-section-377a-repeal-constitution-1974206). *TODAY*. Retrieved 21 August 2022.\n7. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:84_7-0)**\n   Auto, Hermes (21 August 2022). [\"NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Section 377A, decriminalise sex between men \\| The Straits Times\"](https:\/\/www.straitstimes.com\/singapore\/politics\/ndr-2022-govt-will-repeal-section-377a-decriminalise-sex-between-men). *www.straitstimes.com*. Retrieved 21 August 2022.\n8. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-3)\n   Elliott, Josh (6 September 2018). [\"India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't\"](https:\/\/globalnews.ca\/news\/4430721\/india-gay-sex-supreme-court-pakistan-bangladesh\/). *Global News*. Retrieved 19 January 2022.\n9. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-9)**\n   Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018). [\"SC decriminalises homosexuality\"](https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/todays-paper\/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality\/article24887363.ece). *The Hindu* – via www.thehindu.com.\n10. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-10)**\n    Pundir, Pallavi (6 September 2018). [\"I Am What I Am. Take Me as I Am\"](https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/i-am-what-i-am-take-me-as-i-am\/). *[Vice News](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Vice_News \"Vice News\")*. Retrieved 8 September 2018.\n11. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-11)**\n    [\"BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023\"](https:\/\/www.mha.gov.in\/sites\/default\/files\/250883_english_01042024.pdf) (PDF).\n12. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-12)**\n    [\"Delhi high court decriminalizes homosexuality\"](https:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Politics\/sl3bjL7PX8MzUeOhPGejyI\/Delhi-high-court-decriminalizes-homosexuality.html). *www.livemint.com*. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n13. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-13)**\n    [\"Indian court decriminalises homosexuality in Delhi\"](https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2009\/jul\/02\/homosexuality-decriminalised-delhi-india). *the Guardian*. Associated Press. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n14. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-14)**\n    Nidal Al-Mughrabi. [\"Delhi High Court overturns ban on gay sex\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20180710195502\/https:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/idINIndia-40752720090702). *IN*. Archived from [the original](https:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/idINIndia-40752720090702) on 10 July 2018. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n15. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-15)**\n    Monalisa (11 December 2013). [\"Policy\"](https:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Politics\/FHDQ9yB2jRJMsOlNCQrkgL\/Supreme-Court-to-rule-on-legality-of-gay-sex-today.html). *Livemint*. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n16. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-16)**\n    Venkatesan, J. (11 December 2013). [\"Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC verdict decriminalising gay sex\"](https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-hc-verdict-decriminalising-gay-sex\/article5446939.ece). *The Hindu*. [ISSN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISSN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISSN (identifier)\") [0971-751X](https:\/\/search.worldcat.org\/issn\/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n17. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-1)\n    [\"Supreme Court agrees to hear petition on Section 376, refers matter to five-judge bench\"](http:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/india-news-india\/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-petition-on-section-377-refers-matter-to-five-judge-bench\/). 2 February 2016. Retrieved 2 February 2016.\n18. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-3)\n    [\"Right to Privacy Judgement\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20170828075957\/http:\/\/sci.gov.in\/pdf\/LU\/ALL%20WP\\(C\\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF). *Supreme Court of India*. 24 August 2017. pp. 121, 123–24\\. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/sci.gov.in\/pdf\/LU\/ALL%20WP\\(C\\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF) on 28 August 2017.\n19. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-19)**\n    Balakrishnan, Pulapre (25 August 2017). [\"Endgame for Section 377?\"](https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/endgame-for-section-377\/article19555379.ece). *The Hindu*. [ISSN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISSN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISSN (identifier)\") [0971-751X](https:\/\/search.worldcat.org\/issn\/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n20. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-20)**\n    [\"Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place\"](https:\/\/www.firstpost.com\/india\/supreme-court-rights-old-judicial-wrongs-in-landmark-right-to-privacy-verdict-shows-state-its-rightful-place-3984011.html). *www.firstpost.com*. 29 August 2017. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n21. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-21)**\n    [\"Right to Privacy Judgment Makes Section 377 Very Hard to Defend, Says Judge Who Read It Down\"](https:\/\/thewire.in\/gender\/ap-shah-377-right-to-privacy). *The Wire*. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n22. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-22)** [Judgment](https:\/\/www.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2016\/14961\/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf), par. 156.\n23. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-23)**\n    [\"Supreme Court Scraps Section 377; 'Majoritarian Views Cannot Dictate Rights,' Says CJI\"](https:\/\/thewire.in\/law\/supreme-court-scraps-section-377-majoritarian-views-cannot-dictate-rights-says-cji). *The Wire*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n24. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-24)**\n    [\"Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code\"](https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1836974\/). *Indian Kanoon*. Retrieved 30 October 2017.\n25. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-25)**\n    [\"The Indian Penal Code, 1860\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20070114135350\/http:\/\/chddistrictcourts.gov.in\/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF). *Chandigarh District Court*. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/chddistrictcourts.gov.in\/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF) on 14 January 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2017.\n26. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-26)**\n    [\"HC pulls up government for homosexuality doublespeak\"](https:\/\/www.indiatoday.in\/latest-headlines\/story\/hc-pulls-up-government-for-homosexuality-doublespeak-30548-2008-09-26). *India Today*. 26 September 2008.\n27. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-27)**\n    [\"Rare unity: Religious leaders come out in support of Section 377\"](http:\/\/www.dnaindia.com\/india\/report-rare-unity-religious-leaders-come-out-in-support-of-section-377-1933612). *DNAIndia.com*. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n28. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-28)**\n    [\"Section 377 and the law: What courts have said about homosexuality over time\"](https:\/\/www.hindustantimes.com\/india-news\/section-377-and-the-law-what-courts-have-said-about-homosexuality-over-time\/story-66xXSTFILnBYo5hE7yNaKL.html). *hindustantimes.com\/*. 5 February 2018. Retrieved 24 September 2018.\n29. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-29)**\n    [\"Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC\"](https:\/\/www.outlookindia.com\/newswire\/story\/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc\/613434). *outlookindia.com\/*. Retrieved 24 September 2018.\n30. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-30)**\n    Thomas, Shibu (29 September 2016). [\"14% of those arrested under section 377 last year were minors\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/city\/mumbai\/14-of-those-arrested-under-section-377-last-year-were-minors\/articleshow\/54573741.cms). *The Times Of India*. Retrieved 4 November 2017.\n31. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-31)** [India: Repeal Colonial-Era Sodomy Law](https:\/\/hrw.org\/english\/docs\/2006\/01\/11\/india12398.htm), report from [Human Rights Watch](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_Rights_Watch \"Human Rights Watch\"), 11 January 2006.\n32. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-32)**\n    [\"Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code\"](http:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/970675\/). *IndianKanoon.org*. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n33. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-33)**\n    [\"Archived copy\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090725200649\/http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REport%201). Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REport%201) on 25 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n    \n    `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title \"Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title\"))\n34. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-34)**\n    [\"Archived copy\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20070202173932\/http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REPORT%202003). Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REPORT%202003) on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 5 February 2007.\n    \n    `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title \"Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title\"))\n35. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-35)**\n    Ramesh, Randeep (18 September 2006). [\"India's literary elite call for anti-gay law to be scrapped\"](https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2006\/sep\/18\/gayrights.books). *The Guardian*. London. Retrieved 1 September 2007.\n36. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Mexico_AIDS_conference_36-0)**\n    Kounteya Sinha (9 August 2008). [\"Legalise homosexuality: Ramadoss\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/Legalise-homosexuality-Ramadoss\/articleshow\/3342815.cms). *[The Times of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Times_of_India \"The Times of India\")*. [Archived](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121025201512\/http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2008-08-09\/india\/27931000_1_hiv-epidemic-national-aids-control-organization-msms) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n37. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-37)**\n    Vikram Doctor (2 July 2008). [\"Reverse swing: It may be an open affair for gays, lesbians\"](http:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/News\/News_By_Industry\/Reverse_swing_It_may_be_an_open_affair_for_gays_lesbians\/articleshow\/3186187.cms). [The Economic Times](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Economic_Times \"The Economic Times\"). Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n38. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-38)**\n    Shibu Thomas (25 July 2008). [\"Unnatural-sex law needs relook: Bombay HC\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/Unnatural-sex_law_needs_relook_Mumbai_HC\/rssarticleshow\/3276516.cms). *The Times of India*. Retrieved 12 February 2009.\n39. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-39)**\n    [\"Ban on gay sex violates international law\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20180908015737\/https:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/india-rights-gay-un\/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212). *Reuters*. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/india-rights-gay-un\/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212) on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2017.\n40. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-40)**\n    Rameshan, Radhika (13 December 2011). [\"BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexuality\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20131216103934\/http:\/\/www.telegraphindia.com\/1131214\/jsp\/nation\/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw). *The Telegraph*. Archived from [the original](https:\/\/www.telegraphindia.com\/1131214\/jsp\/nation\/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw) on 16 December 2013.\n41. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0a_41-0)**\n    Jyoti, Dhrubo (12 December 2013). [\"Political Leaders React To Supreme Court Judgement On Sec 377\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140511041143\/http:\/\/www.gaylaxymag.com\/latest-news\/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377\/#gs.jTP9N1c). *Gaylaxy*. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.gaylaxymag.com\/latest-news\/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377\/#gs.jTP9N1c) on 11 May 2014. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n42. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-42)**\n    [\"Homosexuality Is Unethical And Immoral: Samajwadi Party\"](http:\/\/www.news18.com\/videos\/politics\/samajwadi-party-on-section-377-655768.html). *News 18*. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n43. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-43)**\n    [\"Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC\"](https:\/\/www.outlookindia.com\/newswire\/story\/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc\/613434). *www.outlookindia.com*. Retrieved 11 September 2018.\n44. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-44)**\n    [\"Being gay is against Hindutva, it needs a cure: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/being-gay-is-against-hindutva-it-needs-a-cure-bjp-mp-subramanian-swamy\/articleshow\/64927333.cms). *The Times of India*. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2020.\n45. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-45)**\n    [\"Section 377: Homosexuality against Hindutva, cannot celebrate it, says BJP leader Subramanian Swamy \\| India News\"](https:\/\/www.timesnownews.com\/india\/article\/section-377-homosexuality-hindutva-gay-sex-lgbt-subramanian-swamy-supreme-court-of-india-section-377-curative-petition-article-377-sec-377-ipc-carnal\/252246). *www.timesnownews.com*. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 11 April 2019.\n46. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-46)**\n    [\"Indian Union Muslim League opposes Supreme Court verdict, says it is against Indian culture\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/city\/trichy\/indian-union-muslim-league-opposes-sc-verdict-says-it-is-against-indian-culture\/articleshow\/65712288.cms). *Times of India*.\n47. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-3)\n    Hans, Namit (14 February 2017). [\"Increasing support for gay rights from BJP leaders. A rainbow in sight?\"](http:\/\/www.catchnews.com\/national-news\/most-indian-political-parties-back-lgbt-rights-a-rainbow-in-sight-1449397534.html). *Catch News*. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n48. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-48)**\n    Roy, Sandip (3 February 2016). [\"The BJP And Its 377 Problem\"](http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.in\/2016\/02\/03\/section-377_0_n_9146832.html). *HuffPost*. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n49. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-49)**\n    [\"BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC\"](http:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Leisure\/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO\/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). 14 January 2015.\n50. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-50)**\n    [\"Statements of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on Section 377 exposes character of Congress leaders: Baba Ramdev\"](http:\/\/www.dnaindia.com\/india\/report-statements-of-sonia-rahul-gandhi-and-kapil-sibal-on-section-377-exposes-character-of-congress-leaders-baba-ramdev-1934573). *DNAIndia.com*. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n51. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-51)**\n    [\"Court should take relook at Section 377 after today's verdict: Chidambaram\"](http:\/\/www.uniindia.com\/court-should-take-relook-at-section-377-after-today-s-verdict-chidambaram\/india\/news\/969519.html). *United News of India*. 24 August 2017. Retrieved 4 November 2017.\n52. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-52)**\n    Tiwari, Ravish (19 March 2016). [\"Section 377: Unlike RSS, BJP shies away from taking a stand on homosexuality\"](https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/news\/politics-and-nation\/section-377-unlike-rss-bjp-shies-away-from-taking-a-stand-on-homosexuality\/articleshow\/51464248.cms). *The Economic Times*. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n53. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-53)**\n    [\"Section 377: Where does each party stand?\"](http:\/\/www.thenewsminute.com\/article\/section-377-where-does-each-party-stand-36408). *The News Minute*. 29 November 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n54. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-1)\n    [\"Shashi Tharoor's bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha\"](http:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/india-news-india\/shashi-tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-homosexuality-defeated-in-ls\/). *IndianExpress.com*. 18 December 2015. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n55. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-55)**\n    [\"BJP thwarting Bill on gays: Tharoor\"](http:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-gay-sex-defeated-again\/article8342075.ece). *The Hindu*. 11 March 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016.\n56. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Chronology_56-0)**\n    [\"Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090705183512\/http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights\/96152-3.html). CNN-IBN. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights\/96152-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n57. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-57)**\n    Kian Ganz (2 July 2009). [\"Lawyers Collective overturns anti-gay law\"](http:\/\/www.legallyindia.com\/2009070276\/News\/lawyers-collective-overturns-anti-gay-law). *legallyindia.com*. Retrieved 9 April 2011.\n58. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-58)**\n    Sheela Bhatt (3 February 2006). [\"Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC\"](http:\/\/us.rediff.com\/news\/2006\/feb\/03gay.htm?q=tp&file=.htm). Rediff News. Retrieved 7 July 2009.\n59. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-59)**\n    Shibu Thomas (20 May 2008). [\"Delhi HC to take up PIL on LGBT rights\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/Delhi-HC-to-take-up-PIL-on-gay-rights\/articleshow\/3054907.cms). *[The Times of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Times_of_India \"The Times of India\")*. [Archived](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121025121052\/http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2008-05-20\/india\/27743991_1_decriminalise-homosexuality-gay-couple-pil-on-gay-rights) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009.\n60. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-60)**\n    [\"Section 377: The famous and fearless 5 who convinced SC - Times of India ►\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/section-377-the-famous-and-fearless-5-who-convinced-sc\/articleshow\/62421886.cms). *The Times of India*. Retrieved 26 September 2018.\n61. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-61)**\n    Schultz, Kai (2 June 2018). [\"Gay in India, Where Progress Has Come Only With Risk\"](https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/06\/02\/world\/asia\/gay-in-india-where-progress-has-come-only-with-risk.html). *The New York Times*. Retrieved 26 September 2018.\n62. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-62)**\n    [\"Centre divided on punishment of homosexuality\"](http:\/\/www.dnaindia.com\/report.asp?newsid=1165375). DNA.\n63. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-63)**\n    [\"Delhi high court all set to rule on same-sex activity petition - Livemint\"](http:\/\/www.livemint.com\/2008\/11\/07220242\/Delhi-high-court-all-set-to-ru.html). *www.Livemint.com*. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n64. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-64)**\n    [\"Moily signals rethink on anti-gay law\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121025201523\/http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2009-06-12\/india\/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi). *[The Times of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Times_of_India \"The Times of India\")*. 12 June 2009. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2009-06-12\/india\/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi) on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009.\n65. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-1)\n    [\"Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090705172824\/http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex\/96148-3.html). [CNN-IBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/CNN-IBN \"CNN-IBN\"). Archived from [the original](http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex\/96148-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n66. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-BBC1_66-0)**\n    [\"Gay sex decriminalised in India\"](https:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/2\/hi\/south_asia\/8129836.stm). [BBC](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/BBC \"BBC\"). 2 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n67. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Judgement_67-0)**\n    [\"Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090826035913\/http:\/\/lobis.nic.in\/dhc\/APS\/judgement\/02-07-2009\/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF). Delhi High Court. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/lobis.nic.in\/dhc\/APS\/judgement\/02-07-2009\/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF) on 26 August 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n68. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-1)\n    [\"Verdict reserved on appeals in gay sex case\"](http:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/article3250607.ece). *The Hindu*. New Delhi, India. 27 March 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.\n69. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-69)**\n    Shesadri, Shekha; et al. [\"Mental Health Professionals--Written Submissions\"](http:\/\/orinam.net\/377\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/SC_MentalHealthProfessionals_WrittenSubmissions.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n70. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-70)**\n    [\"United Nations Criticizes SC Verdict on Sec 377\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140221155213\/http:\/\/www.enewspaperofindia.com\/News\/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx). *enewspaper of India*. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.enewspaperofindia.com\/News\/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx) on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n71. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-71)**\n    [\"UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for equality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20131216050212\/http:\/\/articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com\/2013-12-12\/news\/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights). *The Economic Times*. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com\/2013-12-12\/news\/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights) on 16 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n72. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-72)**\n    [\"Rahul Gandhi too wants Section 377 to go, supports gay rights\"](https:\/\/www.indiatoday.in\/india\/north\/story\/rahul-gandhi-wants-section-377-to-go-supports-gay-rights-220587-2013-12-12). *India Today Online New Delhi*. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n73. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-73)**\n    Press Trust of India (22 July 2014). [\"No plans to amend Section 377 till SC decision: Modi govt\"](http:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/india-others\/no-plans-to-amend-section-377-till-sc-decision-govt\/). *The Indian Express*. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n74. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-74)**\n    Ratnam, Dhamini (14 January 2015). [\"BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC\"](http:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Leisure\/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO\/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). *Mint*. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n75. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-75)**\n    [\"Legal experts on 377 and Right to Privacy\"](http:\/\/www.livelaw.in\/privacy-bench-affirms-lgbt-rights-disagrees-with-suresh-koushal-judgment-on-377-ipc\/). 24 August 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.\n76. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-76)**\n    [\"The Hindu on 377 and Right to Privacy\"](http:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/todays-paper\/tp-opinion\/target-section-377\/article19563070.ece). *[The Hindu](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Hindu \"The Hindu\")*. 25 August 2017.\n77. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-77)**\n    [\"India Just Decriminalized Gay Sex\"](https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/nishitajha\/india-section-377-gay-sex). *BuzzFeed News*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n78. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-78)**\n    [\"Section 377 Verdict By Supreme Court Tomorrow: 10-Point Guide\"](https:\/\/www.ndtv.com\/india-news\/section-377-supreme-court-verdict-tomorrow-1911822). *NDTV.com*. Retrieved 5 September 2018.\n79. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-79)**\n    [\"One India, Equal In Love: Supreme Court Ends Section 377\"](https:\/\/www.ndtv.com\/india-news\/homosexuality-no-longer-a-crime-in-india-supreme-court-ends-controversial-section-377-1912202?browserpush=true). *NDTV.com*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n80. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-80)**\n    [\"India decriminalises gay sex in landmark verdict\"](https:\/\/www.aljazeera.com\/news\/2018\/09\/india-decriminalises-gay-sex-landmark-verdict-180906051219637.html). *www.aljazeera.com*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n81. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-81)**\n    [\"'Gay sex is not a crime,' says Supreme Court in historic judgment\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/gay-sex-is-not-a-crime-says-supreme-court-in-historic-judgement\/articleshow\/65695172.cms). *The Times of India*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n82. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-82)**\n    [\"NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. \\[2018\\] INSC 746 (6 September 2018)\"](http:\/\/www.liiofindia.org\/in\/cases\/cen\/INSC\/2018\/746.html). Legal Information Institute of India. Retrieved 1 April 2020.\n83. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-auto_83-0)**\n    [\"From Canada to India, 'Valiant Five' Have Secured a Marginalised Group's Rights\"](https:\/\/thewire.in\/rights\/section-377-persons-case-canada-lgbt). *The Wire*. Retrieved 12 September 2018.\n84. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-84)**\n    [\"365 without 377 - Adele Tulli\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190514232556\/http:\/\/www.queerdocumentaries.com\/en\/documentaries\/documentary\/365-without-377). *www.queerdocumentaries.com*. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.queerdocumentaries.com\/en\/documentaries\/documentary\/365-without-377) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.\n85. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-85)**\n    Paternò, Cristiana (11 February 2019). [\"Adele Tulli: \"Italy is a lab for gender\"\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190514232553\/https:\/\/news.cinecitta.com\/EN\/en\/news\/104\/77714\/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx). *news.cinecitta.com*. Archived from [the original](https:\/\/news.cinecitta.com\/EN\/en\/news\/104\/77714\/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.\n\n## Further reading\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=21 \"Edit section: Further reading\")\\]\n\n- McGoldrick, Dominic (2019). \"Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India\". *Human Rights Law Review*. **19** (1): 173–185\\. [doi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Doi_\\(identifier\\) \"Doi (identifier)\"):[10\\.1093\/hrlr\/ngy041](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093%2Fhrlr%2Fngy041).\n- Sanders, Douglas E. (2009). [\"377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia\"](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). *Asian Journal of Comparative Law*. **4**: 1–49\\. [doi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Doi_\\(identifier\\) \"Doi (identifier)\"):[10\\.1017\/S2194607800000417](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). [S2CID](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S2CID_\\(identifier\\) \"S2CID (identifier)\") [154403178](https:\/\/api.semanticscholar.org\/CorpusID:154403178).\n\n## External links\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=22 \"Edit section: External links\")\\]\n\n- [Male-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in South Asia: an analysis of the politico-legal framework](http:\/\/www.risksandresponsibilities.org\/ArvindNarrain.pdf), Arvind Narrain & Brototi Dutta, 2006.\n- [Official website of the Naz Foundation of (India) Trust](https:\/\/archive.today\/20120630065247\/http:\/\/www.nazindia.org\/advocacy.htm) (archived)\n- [Section 377 – Indian Penal Code, 1860](http:\/\/devgan.in\/ipc\/section\/377\/) (Mobile)\n\n| [v](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Template:Criminalization_of_homosexuality \"Template:Criminalization of homosexuality\") [t](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Template_talk:Criminalization_of_homosexuality \"Template talk:Criminalization of homosexuality\") [e](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:EditPage\/Template:Criminalization_of_homosexuality \"Special:EditPage\/Template:Criminalization of homosexuality\")[Criminalization of homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Criminalization_of_homosexuality \"Criminalization of homosexuality\") |   |\n|---|---|\n| [Death penalty](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality \"Capital punishment for homosexuality\") | [Afghanistan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Afghanistan \"LGBT rights in Afghanistan\") [Brunei](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Brunei \"LGBT rights in Brunei\") [Iran](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Iran \"LGBT rights in Iran\") [Mauritania](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Mauritania \"LGBT rights in Mauritania\") [Saudi Arabia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia \"LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia\") [Uganda](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda \"LGBT rights in Uganda\") ([Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2023 \"Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023\")) [Yemen](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Yemen \"LGBT rights in Yemen\") |\n| Active | British colonies ([Section 377](), 1860–) [Malaysia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Malaysia \"LGBT rights in Malaysia\") (1860–, with caning) [Uganda](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda \"LGBT rights in Uganda\") (1894–) |\n| Invalidated | [Ecuador](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Decriminalization_of_homosexuality_in_Ecuador \"Decriminalization of homosexuality in Ecuador\") (1871-[1997](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Case_No._111-97-TC \"Case No. 111-97-TC\")) India ([Section 377](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\"), 1861–2018) Sri Lanka ([Article 365](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code \"Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code\"), 1883–) [United States](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States \"Sodomy laws in the United States\") |\n| Repealed | [Australia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Legality_of_same-sex_sexual_activity_in_Australia \"Legality of same-sex sexual activity in Australia\") (1975\/1997) [Brazil](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Legal_status_of_homosexuality_in_Brazil \"Legal status of homosexuality in Brazil\") (1533–1830) Canada (?–[1969](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act,_1968%E2%80%9369 \"Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69\")) Cyprus ([Section 171](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_171_of_the_Criminal_Code_of_Cyprus \"Section 171 of the Criminal Code of Cyprus\"), 1929–1998) Germany ([Paragraph 175](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Paragraph_175 \"Paragraph 175\"), 1871–1969\/1994) New Zealand (1840–[1986](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexual_Law_Reform_Act_1986 \"Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986\")) Singapore ([Section 377A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_\\(Singapore\\) \"Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)\"), 1938–2007\/2022) Norway ([Section 213](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_213_of_the_Norwegian_Penal_Code \"Section 213 of the Norwegian Penal Code\"), ?–1972) Romania ([Article 200](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Article_200 \"Article 200\"), 1968–1996\/2001) [Russia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_history_in_Russia \"LGBT history in Russia\") (1832–1917, 1933–1993) South Africa ([Section 20A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_20A \"Section 20A\"), 1969–2007) United Kingdom ([1533](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Buggery_Act_1533 \"Buggery Act 1533\")–[1967](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967 \"Sexual Offences Act 1967\")\/[1982](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexual_Offences_\\(Northern_Ireland\\)_Order_1982 \"Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982\")) |\n| Related articles | [Decriminalization of homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Decriminalization_of_homosexuality \"Decriminalization of homosexuality\") [Sodomy law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sodomy_law \"Sodomy law\") [LGBT rights](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights \"LGBT rights\") [Sharia law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sharia#LGBT_rights \"Sharia\") |\n\n| [v](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Template:Indian_Penal_Code_navbox \"Template:Indian Penal Code navbox\") [t](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Template_talk:Indian_Penal_Code_navbox \"Template talk:Indian Penal Code navbox\") [e](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:EditPage\/Template:Indian_Penal_Code_navbox \"Special:EditPage\/Template:Indian Penal Code navbox\")[Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") |   |\n|---|---|\n| Chapters | [Chapter I](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chapter_I_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Chapter I of the Indian Penal Code\") [Chapter II](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chapter_II_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Chapter II of the Indian Penal Code\") [Chapter III](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_III_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter III of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter IV](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_IV_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter V](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_V_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter VA](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chapter_VA_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Chapter VA of the Indian Penal Code\") [Chapter VI](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_VI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter VII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_VII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter VII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter VIII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_VIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter IX](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_IX_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter IXA](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_IXA_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter X](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_X_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XI](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XIII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XIV](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XIV_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XV](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XV_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XV of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XVI](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XVI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XVII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XVII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XVIII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XVIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XIX](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XIX_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XIX of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XX](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chapter_XX_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code\") [Chapter XXA](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chapter_XXA_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Chapter XXA of the Indian Penal Code\") [Chapter XXI](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XXI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XXII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XXII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [Chapter XXIII](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Chapter_XXIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Chapter XXIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") |\n| [Capital offence sections](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Capital_punishment_in_India \"Capital punishment in India\") | [120B](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_120B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code\") ([criminal conspiracy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Conspiracy_\\(criminal\\) \"Conspiracy (criminal)\")) [121](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_121_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") ([waging war against India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Terrorism_in_India \"Terrorism in India\")) [122](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_122_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 122 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") ([mutiny](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mutiny \"Mutiny\")) [194](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_194_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") (false evidence to procure conviction for a [capital offence](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Capital_punishment \"Capital punishment\")) [302, 303](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_302_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code\") ([murder](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Murder_\\(Indian_law\\) \"Murder (Indian law)\")) [305](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_305_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") (abetting [suicide](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Suicide_in_India \"Suicide in India\")) [364A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_364A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") ([kidnapping](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Kidnapping \"Kidnapping\") for ransom) [364A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_364B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 364B of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") ([dacoity](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dacoity \"Dacoity\") with murder) [376A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_376B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 376B of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") ([rape](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rape_in_India \"Rape in India\") with murder or resulting in [persistent vegetative state](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Persistent_vegetative_state \"Persistent vegetative state\") of the victim) |\n| Other sections | [1](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_1_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 1 of the Indian Penal Code\") [2](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_2_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [3](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_3_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 3 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [4](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_4_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [5](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_5_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 5 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") [20](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_20_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 20 of the Indian Penal Code\") ([court of law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Court_of_law \"Court of law\")) [124A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_124A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code\") ([sedition](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sedition \"Sedition\")) [144](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_144_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") ([unlawful assembly](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unlawful_assembly \"Unlawful assembly\")) [153A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hate_speech_laws_in_India#Section_153\\(A\\) \"Hate speech laws in India\") ([hate speech](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hate_speech \"Hate speech\")) [228A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_228A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code\") (privacy of rape victim) [294](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_294_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code\") ([obscenity](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Obscenity \"Obscenity\")) [295A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_295A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code\") ([blasphemy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Blasphemy \"Blasphemy\")) [299](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_299_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") ([culpable homicide](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Culpable_homicide \"Culpable homicide\")) [304](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_304_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 \"Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)\") (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) [320](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_320_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code\") ([grievous hurt](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Grievous_hurt \"Grievous hurt\")) [326A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_326A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code\") ([acid attack](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Acid_attack \"Acid attack\")) [326B](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_326B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code\") (attempted acid attack) [377](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code) ([unnatural sex offences](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Crime_against_nature \"Crime against nature\")) [420](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_420_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code\") ([fraud](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Fraud \"Fraud\")) |\n| Defunct | [309](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_309_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code\") ([attempted suicide](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Suicide_attempt \"Suicide attempt\")) [497](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Adultery_law_in_India \"Adultery law in India\") ([adultery](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Adultery \"Adultery\")) |\n\n| [v](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Template:LGBTQ_in_India \"Template:LGBTQ in India\") [t](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Template_talk:LGBTQ_in_India \"Template talk:LGBTQ in India\") [e](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:EditPage\/Template:LGBTQ_in_India \"Special:EditPage\/Template:LGBTQ in India\")[LGBTQ rights in India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBTQ_rights_in_India \"LGBTQ rights in India\") |   |\n|---|---|\n| [States](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/States_and_union_territories_of_India \"States and union territories of India\") |   |\n|   |   |\n| Rights | [Goa](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBTQ_rights_in_Goa \"LGBTQ rights in Goa\") [Karnataka](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBTQ_rights_in_Karnataka \"LGBTQ rights in Karnataka\") [Kerala](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBTQ_rights_in_Kerala \"LGBTQ rights in Kerala\") [Tamil Nadu](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBTQ_rights_in_Tamil_Nadu \"LGBTQ rights in Tamil Nadu\") |\n| Relationship recognition | [Andhra Pradesh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Andhra_Pradesh \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh\") [Goa](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Goa \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Goa\") [Gujarat](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Gujarat \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Gujarat\") [Karnataka](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Karnataka \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Karnataka\") [Kerala](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Kerala \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Kerala\") [Maharashtra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Maharashtra \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Maharashtra\") [Odisha](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Odisha \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Odisha\") [Tamil Nadu](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Tamil_Nadu \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Tamil Nadu\") [Uttar Pradesh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Uttar_Pradesh \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Uttar Pradesh\") [Uttarakhand](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Uttarakhand \"Recognition of same-sex unions in Uttarakhand\") |\n| [Judgments](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Judiciary_of_India \"Judiciary of India\") | [LGBTQ Rights Case Law in India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Indian_LGBTQ_rights_case_law \"Category:Indian LGBTQ rights case law\") |\n| [Statutes](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Law_of_India \"Law of India\") |   |\n|   |   |\n| Legal status |   |\n|   |   |\n| [Gender Identity](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Legal_status_of_transgender_people \"Legal status of transgender people\") | [Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Transgender_Persons_\\(Protection_of_Rights\\)_Act,_2019 \"Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019\") [Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rights_of_Transgender_Persons_Bill,_2014 \"Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014\") |\n| [Sexual Orientation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Criminalization_of_homosexuality \"Criminalization of homosexuality\") | [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#India) |\n| [Healthcare](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Healthcare_and_the_LGBTQ_community \"Healthcare and the LGBTQ community\") | [HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_Immunodeficiency_Virus_and_Acquired_Immune_Deficiency_Syndrome_\\(Prevention_and_Control\\)_Act,_2017 \"Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017\") [Mental Healthcare Act, 2017](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mental_Healthcare_Act,_2017 \"Mental Healthcare Act, 2017\") |\n| [Parenthood](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_parenting \"LGBT parenting\") | [Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Central_Adoption_Resource_Authority \"Central Adoption Resource Authority\") [Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Assisted_reproductive_technology#India \"Assisted reproductive technology\") [Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Surrogacy_in_India \"Surrogacy in India\") [Adoption Regulations of 2022](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Central_Adoption_Resource_Authority \"Central Adoption Resource Authority\") |\n| Organisations |   |\n|   |   |\n| Government bodies | [National Council for Transgender Persons](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/National_Council_for_Transgender_Persons \"National Council for Transgender Persons\") |\n| [Culture](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_culture_in_India \"LGBT culture in India\") |   |\n|   |   |\n| [History](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_history_in_India \"LGBT history in India\") | [Hijra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hijra_\\(South_Asia\\) \"Hijra (South Asia)\") [Homosexuality in India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality_in_India \"Homosexuality in India\") |\n| Awards | [Rainbow Awards](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rainbow_Awards \"Rainbow Awards\") [2023](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/1st_Rainbow_Awards \"1st Rainbow Awards\") [2024](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/2nd_Rainbow_Awards \"2nd Rainbow Awards\") |\n| Media | *[68 Pages](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/68_Pages \"68 Pages\")* *[Aligarh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aligarh_\\(film\\) \"Aligarh (film)\")* *[Angry Indian Goddesses](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Angry_Indian_Goddesses \"Angry Indian Goddesses\")* *[Antharam](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Antharam \"Antharam\")* *[Aruvi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aruvi \"Aruvi\")* *[Arekti Premer Golpo](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Arekti_Premer_Golpo \"Arekti Premer Golpo\")* *[Bombay Talkies](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bombay_Talkies_\\(film\\) \"Bombay Talkies (film)\")* *[Chitrangada: The Crowning Wish](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chitrangada:_The_Crowning_Wish \"Chitrangada: The Crowning Wish\")* *[Dostana](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dostana_\\(2008_film\\) \"Dostana (2008 film)\")* *[Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ek_Ladki_Ko_Dekha_Toh_Aisa_Laga \"Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga\")* *[Evening Shadows](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Evening_Shadows \"Evening Shadows\")* *[Fire](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Fire_\\(1996_film\\) \"Fire (1996 film)\")* *[Goa](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Goa_\\(2010_film\\) \"Goa (2010 film)\")* *[I Am](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/I_Am_\\(2010_Indian_film\\) \"I Am (2010 Indian film)\")* *[Kapoor & Sons](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Kapoor_%26_Sons \"Kapoor & Sons\")* *[Loev](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Loev \"Loev\")* *[Made in Heaven](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Made_in_Heaven_\\(TV_series\\) \"Made in Heaven (TV series)\")* *[Mango Soufflé](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mango_Souffl%C3%A9 \"Mango Soufflé\")* *[Margarita with a Straw](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Margarita_with_a_Straw \"Margarita with a Straw\")* *[Memories in March](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Memories_in_March \"Memories in March\")* *[Nagarkirtan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Nagarkirtan \"Nagarkirtan\")* *[Njan Marykutty](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Njan_Marykutty \"Njan Marykutty\")* *[Qissa](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Qissa_\\(film\\) \"Qissa (film)\")* *[Randu Penkuttikal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Randu_Penkuttikal \"Randu Penkuttikal\")* *[Romil & Jugal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Romil_%26_Jugal \"Romil & Jugal\")* *[Shab](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shab_\\(film\\) \"Shab (film)\")* *[Sheer Qorma](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sheer_Qorma_\\(film\\) \"Sheer Qorma (film)\")* *[Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shubh_Mangal_Zyada_Saavdhan \"Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan\")* *[Sisak](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sisak_\\(film\\) \"Sisak (film)\")* *[Super Deluxe](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Super_Deluxe_\\(film\\) \"Super Deluxe (film)\")* *[The Pink Mirror](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Pink_Mirror \"The Pink Mirror\")* *[Time Out](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Time_Out_\\(2015_film\\) \"Time Out (2015 film)\")* *[Unfreedom](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unfreedom \"Unfreedom\")* |\n| Events | [Chennai International Queer Film Festival](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chennai_International_Queer_Film_Festival \"Chennai International Queer Film Festival\") [KASHISH Mumbai International Queer Film Festival](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/KASHISH_Mumbai_International_Queer_Film_Festival \"KASHISH Mumbai International Queer Film Festival\") [Koovagam](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Koovagam \"Koovagam\") |\n| [Pride  Marches](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBTQ_pride \"LGBTQ pride\") | [Ahmedabad](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gujarat_LGBTQ_Pride \"Gujarat LGBTQ Pride\") [Bengaluru](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bengaluru_Namma_Pride_March \"Bengaluru Namma Pride March\") [Bhopal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bhopal_Pride_March \"Bhopal Pride March\") [Bhubaneswar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade \"Bhubaneswar Pride Parade\") [Chandigarh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chandigarh_LGBT_Pride_Walk \"Chandigarh LGBT Pride Walk\") [Chennai](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chennai_Rainbow_Pride \"Chennai Rainbow Pride\") [Dehradun](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dehradun_Pride_Parade \"Dehradun Pride Parade\") [Delhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_Queer_Pride_Parade \"Delhi Queer Pride Parade\") [Jamshedpur](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Jamshedpur_LGBTQ_Pride \"Jamshedpur LGBTQ Pride\") [Gurgaon](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gurgaon_queer_pride \"Gurgaon queer pride\") [Guwahati](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Queer_Pride_Guwahati \"Queer Pride Guwahati\") [Hyderabad](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hyderabad_Queer_Pride \"Hyderabad Queer Pride\") [Jaipur](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Queer_Gulabi_Pride_Jaipur \"Queer Gulabi Pride Jaipur\") [Kochi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBTQ_rights_in_Kerala#Pride_marches \"LGBTQ rights in Kerala\") [Kolkata](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Kolkata_Rainbow_Pride_Walk \"Kolkata Rainbow Pride Walk\") [Lucknow](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Awadh_Queer_Pride \"Awadh Queer Pride\") [Madurai](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gopi_Shankar_Madurai#Social_activism \"Gopi Shankar Madurai\") [Mumbai](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Queer_Azaadi_Mumbai \"Queer Azaadi Mumbai\") [Nagpur](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Orange_City_LGBT_Pride_March \"Orange City LGBT Pride March\") [Panaji](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pride_De_Goa \"Pride De Goa\") [Patna](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Patna_Pride_March \"Patna Pride March\") [Pune](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pune_Pride \"Pune Pride\") |\n| Religion | [Christianity and sexual orientation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Christianity_and_homosexuality \"Christianity and homosexuality\") [Buddhism and sexual orientation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation \"Buddhism and sexual orientation\") [Hinduism and LGBT topics](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hinduism_and_LGBT_topics \"Hinduism and LGBT topics\") [LGBT themes in Hindu mythology](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_themes_in_Hindu_mythology \"LGBT themes in Hindu mythology\") [Bahá'í Faith and sexual orientation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_views_on_homosexuality \"Baháʼí views on homosexuality\") [LGBT people and Islam](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_people_and_Islam \"LGBT people and Islam\") [Sikhism and sexual orientation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sikhism_and_sexual_orientation \"Sikhism and sexual orientation\") [Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Zoroastrianism_and_sexual_orientation \"Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation\") |\n\n![](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:CentralAutoLogin\/start?useformat=desktop&type=1x1&usesul3=1)\n\nRetrieved from \"<https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&oldid=1342787063>\"\n\n[Categories](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Help:Category \"Help:Category\"):\n\n- [British Empire](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:British_Empire \"Category:British Empire\")\n- [Criminalization of homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Criminalization_of_homosexuality \"Category:Criminalization of homosexuality\")\n- [Legal history](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Legal_history \"Category:Legal history\")\n- [History of colonialism](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:History_of_colonialism \"Category:History of colonialism\")\n- [Anti-LGBTQ law in the United Kingdom](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Anti-LGBTQ_law_in_the_United_Kingdom \"Category:Anti-LGBTQ law in the United Kingdom\")\n- [Anti-LGBTQ law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Anti-LGBTQ_law \"Category:Anti-LGBTQ law\")\n- [LGBTQ law in India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_India \"Category:LGBTQ law in India\")\n- [LGBTQ law in Bangladesh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_Bangladesh \"Category:LGBTQ law in Bangladesh\")\n- [LGBTQ law in Myanmar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_Myanmar \"Category:LGBTQ law in Myanmar\")\n- [LGBTQ law in Pakistan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_Pakistan \"Category:LGBTQ law in Pakistan\")\n\nHidden categories:\n\n- [CS1 maint: archived copy as title](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title \"Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title\")\n- [Articles with short description](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Articles_with_short_description \"Category:Articles with short description\")\n- [Short description matches Wikidata](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Short_description_matches_Wikidata \"Category:Short description matches Wikidata\")\n- [Use dmy dates from July 2025](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Use_dmy_dates_from_July_2025 \"Category:Use dmy dates from July 2025\")\n- [Use British English from July 2025](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Use_British_English_from_July_2025 \"Category:Use British English from July 2025\")\n- [All Wikipedia articles written in British English](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:All_Wikipedia_articles_written_in_British_English \"Category:All Wikipedia articles written in British English\")\n- [All articles with unsourced statements](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements \"Category:All articles with unsourced statements\")\n- [Articles with unsourced statements from July 2025](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements_from_July_2025 \"Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2025\")\n\n- This page was last edited on 10 March 2026, at 17:59 (UTC).\n- Text is available under the [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_4.0_International_License \"Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License\"); additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the [Terms of Use](https:\/\/foundation.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Special:MyLanguage\/Policy:Terms_of_Use \"foundation:Special:MyLanguage\/Policy:Terms of Use\") and [Privacy Policy](https:\/\/foundation.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Special:MyLanguage\/Policy:Privacy_policy \"foundation:Special:MyLanguage\/Policy:Privacy policy\"). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the [Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.](https:\/\/wikimediafoundation.org\/), a non-profit organization.\n\n- [Privacy policy](https:\/\/foundation.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Special:MyLanguage\/Policy:Privacy_policy)\n- [About Wikipedia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:About)\n- [Disclaimers](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer)\n- [Contact Wikipedia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Contact_us)\n- [Legal & safety contacts](https:\/\/foundation.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Special:MyLanguage\/Legal:Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_and_Safety_Contact_Information)\n- [Code of Conduct](https:\/\/foundation.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Special:MyLanguage\/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct)\n- [Developers](https:\/\/developer.wikimedia.org\/)\n- [Statistics](https:\/\/stats.wikimedia.org\/#\/en.wikipedia.org)\n- [Cookie statement](https:\/\/foundation.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/Special:MyLanguage\/Policy:Cookie_statement)\n- [Mobile view](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile)\n\n- [![Wikimedia Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/static\/images\/footer\/wikimedia.svg)](https:\/\/www.wikimedia.org\/)\n- [![Powered by MediaWiki](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/resources\/assets\/mediawiki_compact.svg)](https:\/\/www.mediawiki.org\/)\n\nSearch\n\nToggle the table of contents\n\nSection 377\n\n9 languages\n\n[Add topic](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377)","attrs_readable_markdown":"**Section 377** is a [British colonial](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Empire \"British Empire\") [Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Penal_code \"Penal code\") provision that [criminalized](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Criminalization \"Criminalization\") all [sexual acts](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_sexual_activity \"Human sexual activity\") \"against the order of nature\". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in [oral](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Oral_sex \"Oral sex\") and [anal sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Anal_sex \"Anal sex\") along with [homosexual](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") activity. As per a Supreme Court of [India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/India \"India\") judgement since 2018, the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years' imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize [third gender](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Third_gender \"Third gender\") people, such as the *[apwint](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Apwint \"Apwint\")* in [Myanmar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Myanmar \"Myanmar\").[\\[1\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1) In 2018, then [British Prime Minister](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_prime_minister \"British prime minister\") [Theresa May](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Theresa_May \"Theresa May\") acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.[\\[2\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2)\n\nAlthough the act of sodomy was sometimes prosecuted in England under British [common law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Common_law \"Common law\"), it was first [codified](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Codification_\\(law\\) \"Codification (law)\") in the [British empire](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Empire \"British Empire\") as Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") as \"carnal intercourse against the order of nature\" in 1860. Section 377 was then exported to other colonies and even to England itself, providing the legal model for the act of '[buggery](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Buggery \"Buggery\")' in the [Offences Against the Person Act](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Offences_Against_the_Person_Act_1861 \"Offences Against the Person Act 1861\") (1861).[\\[2\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2) Alok Gupta wrote for a [Human Rights Watch](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_Rights_Watch \"Human Rights Watch\") report in 2008 that the British intended for the code to prevent [Christian](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Christians \"Christians\") colonial subjects from \"[corruption](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Corruption \"Corruption\")\", and to condition colonized subjects undergoing [Christianization](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Christianization \"Christianization\") to conform to colonial authority.[\\[3\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-3) This consequently had a big impact on [colonial-era sexuality in India.](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexuality_in_India#Colonial-era \"Sexuality in India\")\n\nAlthough Section 377 did not explicitly include the word *homosexual*, it has been used to prosecute [homosexual](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") activity. The provision was introduced by authorities in the [Raj](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Raj \"British Raj\") in 1862 as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\") and functioned as the [legal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Law \"Law\") impetus behind the [criminalization](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Criminalization \"Criminalization\") of what was referred to as, \"unnatural offences\" throughout the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number.[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)[\\[5\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1-5)[\\[1\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1)\n\nIn [Singapore](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Singapore \"Singapore\"), a similar law called [Section 377A](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377A_\\(Singapore\\) \"Section 377A (Singapore)\") of the Singapore Penal Code was introduced in 1938 by the colonial government that had also criminalized sex between men. In 2022, then Prime Minister [Lee Hsien Loong](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lee_Hsien_Loong \"Lee Hsien Loong\") had announced that the provision would be repealed.[\\[6\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:83-6)[\\[7\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:84-7) It was repealed on 29 November 2022 when the bill passed in Parliament.\\[*[citation needed](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Citation_needed \"Wikipedia:Citation needed\")*\\]\n\n### Where Section 377 remains in force\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=2 \"Edit section: Where Section 377 remains in force\")\\]\n\nAlthough most colonies have since gained [independence](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Independence \"Independence\") through [statehood](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/State_\\(polity\\) \"State (polity)\") since Section 377 was implemented, it remains in the [penal codes](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Penal_codes \"Penal codes\") of the following countries, all of which were formerly a part of the [British Empire](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_Empire \"British Empire\"):\n\n**Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code** was a section of the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") introduced in 1861 during the [British rule of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/British_rule_of_India \"British rule of India\"). Modeled on the [Buggery Act 1533](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Buggery_Act_1533 \"Buggery Act 1533\"), it made sexual activities \"against the order of nature\" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual [homosexual sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") between adults was unconstitutional, \"irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary\",[\\[9\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-9) but that Section 377 remained in force relating to sex with [minors](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Minor_\\(law\\) \"Minor (law)\"), [non-consensual](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexual_consent \"Sexual consent\") sexual acts, and [bestiality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bestiality \"Bestiality\").[\\[10\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-10) Section 377 was fully replaced along with the rest of the Indian Penal Code by the [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita \"Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita\")[\\[11\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-11) on 1 July 2024.\n\nPortions of the section were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to [gay sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gay_sex \"Gay sex\") by the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") in July 2009.[\\[12\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-12)[\\[13\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-13)[\\[14\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-14) That judgement was overturned by the [Supreme Court of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") (SC) on 11 December 2013 in *[Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_vs._Naz_Foundation \"Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation\")*. The Court held that amending or repealing section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.[\\[15\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-15)[\\[16\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-16) On 6 February 2016, a three-member bench of the Court reviewed curative petitions submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") and others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench.[\\[17\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17)\n\nOn 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution in the landmark *[Puttaswamy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Justice_K._S._Puttaswamy_\\(Retd.\\)_and_Anr._vs_Union_Of_India_And_Ors. \"Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.\")* judgement. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the [fundamental rights](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Fundamental_rights \"Fundamental rights\") and that the rights of the [LGBT](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT \"LGBT\") population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377.[\\[19\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-19)[\\[20\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-20)[\\[21\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-21)\n\nIn January 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 *Naz Foundation* judgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in *[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India \"Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\")* that Section 377 was unconstitutional \"in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex\".[\\[22\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-22)[\\[23\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-23) The judgment was given by a five-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India [Dipak Misra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dipak_Misra \"Dipak Misra\"), Justices [R. F. Nariman](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman \"Rohinton Fali Nariman\"), [D. Y. Chandrachud](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud \"Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud\"), [A. M. Khanwilkar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar \"Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar\") and [Indu Malhotra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indu_Malhotra \"Indu Malhotra\").\\[*[citation needed](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Citation_needed \"Wikipedia:Citation needed\")*\\]\n\n> **377\\. Unnatural offences**: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. **Explanation**: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.[\\[24\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-24)[\\[25\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-25)\n\n[![](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/0\/06\/Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg\/250px-Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg)\n\nParticipant carrying a poster on Section 377 during [Bhubaneswar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bhubaneswar \"Bhubaneswar\") Pride Parade\n\nIn 2008 Additional [Solicitor General](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Solicitor_General_of_India \"Solicitor General of India\") PP Malhotra said: \"[Homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. \\[Decriminalising homosexuality\\] may create \\[a\\] breach of peace. If it is allowed then \\[the\\] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society.\" This view was shared by the Home Ministry.[\\[26\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-26)\n\n11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it \"the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other's religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment\" The *Daily News and Analysis* article added that Baba [Ramdev](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ramdev \"Ramdev\"), India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not \"turn homosexual\", stated he could \"cure\" homosexuality through yoga and called it \"a bad addiction\".[\\[27\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-27)\n\n#### Opposition and criticism\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=7 \"Edit section: Opposition and criticism\")\\]\n\nThe [Ministry of Health and Family Welfare](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ministry_of_Health_and_Family_Welfare \"Ministry of Health and Family Welfare\") opposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti-[HIV\/AIDS](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/HIV\/AIDS \"HIV\/AIDS\") efforts.[\\[28\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-28)[\\[29\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-29) According to the [NCRB](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/National_Crime_Records_Bureau \"National Crime Records Bureau\"), in 2015, 1,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women.[\\[30\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-30) [Human Rights Watch](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_Rights_Watch \"Human Rights Watch\") also argued that the law had been used to harass [HIV\/AIDS](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/AIDS \"AIDS\") prevention efforts, as well as [sex workers](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sex_worker \"Sex worker\"), [homosexuals](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuals \"Homosexuals\"), and other groups at risk of the disease,[\\[31\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-31) even though those found guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that relate to Section 377 may face a life sentence under a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC.[\\[32\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-32) The [People's Union for Civil Liberties](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/People%27s_Union_for_Civil_Liberties \"People's Union for Civil Liberties\") has published two reports on the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[\\[33\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-33) and, in particular, [transsexuals](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Transsexual \"Transsexual\") in India.[\\[34\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-34)\n\nIn 2006, Section 377 came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[\\[35\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-35) most prominently [Vikram Seth](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Vikram_Seth \"Vikram Seth\"). The law subsequently drew even more criticism from several ministers, most prominently [Anbumani Ramadoss](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Anbumani_Ramadoss \"Anbumani Ramadoss\")[\\[36\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Mexico_AIDS_conference-36) and [Oscar Fernandes](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Oscar_Fernandes \"Oscar Fernandes\").[\\[37\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-37) In 2008, a judge of the [Bombay High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bombay_High_Court \"Bombay High Court\") also called for the scrapping of the law.[\\[38\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-38)\n\nThe [United Nations](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_Nations \"United Nations\") also said that the ban violated international law. [United Nations human rights](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council \"United Nations Human Rights Council\") chief [Navi Pillay](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Navi_Pillay \"Navi Pillay\") stated that \"Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified\", and that the decision \"represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights.\", voicing hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure.[\\[39\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-39)\n\n### View of political parties\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=8 \"Edit section: View of political parties\")\\]\n\n#### Opposition to repeal\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=9 \"Edit section: Opposition to repeal\")\\]\n\n[Rajnath Singh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rajnath_Singh \"Rajnath Singh\"), a member of the ruling party [BJP](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Janata_Party \"Bharatiya Janata Party\") and the Home Minister, is on record shortly after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is \"unambiguously\" in favour of the law, also claiming that \"We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported.\"[\\[40\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-40) [Yogi Adityanath](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Yogi_Adityanath \"Yogi Adityanath\"), BJP [MP](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Member_of_parliament,_Lok_Sabha \"Member of parliament, Lok Sabha\"), welcomed the 2013 verdict and will \"oppose any move to decriminalise homosexuality.\"[\\[41\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0a-41)\n\nThe [Samajwadi Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Samajwadi_Party \"Samajwadi Party\") made it clear that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality \"unethical and immoral\".[\\[42\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-42) [Ram Gopal Yadav](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ram_Gopal_Yadav \"Ram Gopal Yadav\") stated that they support the Supreme Court decision as \"It is completely against the culture of our nation.\"[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)\n\nThe Congress party-led [UPA government](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_Progressive_Alliance \"United Progressive Alliance\") also supported the law during the initial [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") case, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalized.[\\[43\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-43)\n\n[Bharatiya Janata Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Janata_Party \"Bharatiya Janata Party\") leader [Subramanian Swamy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Subramanian_Swamy \"Subramanian Swamy\") said that homosexuality was not a normal thing and was against [Hindutva](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hindutva \"Hindutva\").[\\[44\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-44) He went on to say that it was \"a danger to our national security\" and that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. He added that \"there is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll be a cover for [pedophiles](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pedophilia \"Pedophilia\") and a huge rise in HIV cases.\"[\\[45\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-45)\n\nAfter the 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court, the [Indian Union Muslim League](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Union_Muslim_League \"Indian Union Muslim League\") continued to oppose decriminalisation, saying 'homosexuality is against Indian culture'.[\\[46\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-46)\n\nFormer Finance Minister and BJP member [Arun Jaitley](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Arun_Jaitley \"Arun Jaitley\") said that \"Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalized consensual sex between gay adults\" and \"When millions of people the world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed.\"[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\\[48\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-48) BJP spokesperson [Shaina NC](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shaina_NC \"Shaina NC\") said her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. \"We are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.\"[\\[49\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-49)\n\nIn December 2013, [Indian National Congress](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_National_Congress \"Indian National Congress\") President [Rahul Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rahul_Gandhi \"Rahul Gandhi\") came out in support of LGBT rights and said that \"every individual had the right to choose\". He also said \"These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, freedom of expression. So let that be. I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement\", he said. The LGBT rights movement in India was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections.[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47) [Sonia Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sonia_Gandhi \"Sonia Gandhi\") also shared a similar view.[\\[50\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-50) Senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister [P. Chidambaram](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/P._Chidambaram \"P. Chidambaram\") stated that the 2013 *Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation* judgement must be quickly reversed.[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) He also said that \"Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck down or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement by Justice AP Shah.\"[\\[51\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-51)\n\nThe [RSS](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh \"Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh\") revised its position, the leader [Dattatreya Hosabale](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dattatreya_Hosabale \"Dattatreya Hosabale\") reportedly saying, \"no criminalisation, but no glorification either.\"[\\[52\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-52) RSS chief [Mohan Bhagwat](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mohan_Bhagwat \"Mohan Bhagwat\") also came out in support of the LGBTQIA+ community stating that they should be accepted as an integral part of society. After the 2013 verdict, the [Aam Aadmi Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aam_Aadmi_Party \"Aam Aadmi Party\") put on their website:\n\n> The [Aam Aadmi party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aam_Aadmi_Party \"Aam Aadmi Party\") is disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Section 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") on the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the police. This not only violates the human rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will also step in to repeal this archaic law.[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)\n\n[Brinda Karat](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Brinda_Karat \"Brinda Karat\") of the [Communist Party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Communist_Party_of_India_\\(Marxist\\) \"Communist Party of India (Marxist)\") said the SC order was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is wrong.[\\[53\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-53)\n\n[Shivanand Tiwari](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shivanand_Tiwari \"Shivanand Tiwari\"), leader of [Janata Dal United](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Janata_Dal_\\(United\\) \"Janata Dal (United)\"), did not support the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_court \"Supreme court\") decision, calling [homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") practical and constitutional. He added that \"This happens in society and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Court trying to stop them?\"[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)\n\n[Derek O'Brien](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Derek_O%27Brien_\\(politician\\) \"Derek O'Brien (politician)\") of the [Trinamool Congress](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/All_India_Trinamool_Congress \"All India Trinamool Congress\") said that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal world we live in today.[\\[4\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)\n\nOn 18 December 2015, [Lok Sabha](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lok_Sabha \"Lok Sabha\") member [Shashi Tharoor](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shashi_Tharoor \"Shashi Tharoor\") of the [Indian National Congress](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_National_Congress \"Indian National Congress\") introduced a [private member's bill](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Private_member%27s_bill \"Private member's bill\") to replace Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") and decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24.[\\[54\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54) For his part, Tharoor expressed surprise at the bill's rejection at this early stage. He said that he did not have time to rally support and that he will attempt to reintroduce the bill.[\\[54\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54)\n\nIn March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's bill to decriminalize [homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\") but was voted down for the second time.[\\[55\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-55)\n\n#### 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=13 \"Edit section: 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\")\\]\n\n[![](https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/a\/a8\/Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf\/page1-250px-Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf.jpg)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP\\(C\\)_No.7455_2001.pdf)\n\nThe judgement of the [High Court of Delhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/High_Court_of_Delhi \"High Court of Delhi\") of 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults\n\nThe movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by [AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/AIDS_Bhedbhav_Virodhi_Andolan \"AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan\") in 1991. Their historic publication *Less than Gay: A Citizen's Report*, spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. [A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India'](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20120406222219\/http:\/\/archive.epw.in\/data\/PDF\/001189_EPW_3_2_1996_Vol_XXXI_No_5\/COMMENTARY_Gay%20Rights%20in%20India.pdf) chronicles this early history. As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the [Naz Foundation (India) Trust](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\"), an activist group, which filed a [public interest litigation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Public_interest_litigation \"Public interest litigation\") in the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") in 2001, seeking the legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[\\[56\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Chronology-56) The [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") worked with a legal team from the [Lawyers Collective](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lawyers_Collective \"Lawyers Collective\") to engage in court.[\\[57\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-57) In 2003, the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners, had no *[locus standi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Locus_standi \"Locus standi\")* in the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") in the absence of a petitioner with standing.\n\n[Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the [High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/High_court \"High court\") to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit.[\\[58\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-58) Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called 'Voices Against 377', which supported the demand to 'read down' section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.[\\[59\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-59)\n\nThere was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with [Navtej Singh Johar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Navtej_Singh_Johar \"Navtej Singh Johar\") and drew from his personal experiences while protesting. [Ritu Dalmia](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ritu_Dalmia \"Ritu Dalmia\") also demonstrated keen activism. [Aman Nath](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aman_Nath \"Aman Nath\"), a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Section 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg died.[\\[60\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-60) Ayesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent e-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out about her sexuality. Over time, she gained the courage to come out and challenge Section 377.[\\[61\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-61)\n\nIn May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\"), but the Government was undecided on its position, with The [Ministry of Home Affairs](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ministry_of_home_affairs \"Ministry of home affairs\") maintaining a contradictory position to that of the Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to [homosexuality](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexuality \"Homosexuality\").[\\[62\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-62) On 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move.[\\[63\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-63) On 12 June 2009, India's new law minister [Veerappa Moily](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Veerappa_Moily \"Veerappa Moily\") agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.[\\[64\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-64)\n\nEventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section,[\\[65\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65) legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults.[\\[66\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-BBC1-66) The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice [Ajit Prakash Shah](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ajit_Prakash_Shah \"Ajit Prakash Shah\") and Justice [S. Muralidhar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S._Muralidhar \"S. Muralidhar\") said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.\n\nThe two-judge bench went on to hold that:\n\n> If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as 'deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.\n> \n> Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination.\n> \n> This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.[\\[67\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Judgement-67)\n\nThe court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.[\\[65\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65)\n\nA batch of appeals were filed with the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\"), challenging the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\") judgment. On 27 March 2012, the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_court \"Supreme court\") reserved verdict on these.[\\[68\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68) After initially opposing the judgement, the [Attorney General](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Attorney_General_of_India \"Attorney General of India\") [G. E. Vahanvati](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/G._E._Vahanvati \"G. E. Vahanvati\") decided not to file any appeal against the [Delhi High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Delhi_High_Court \"Delhi High Court\")'s verdict, stating, \"insofar as \\[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\\] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private \\[before it was struck down by the High Court\\] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers.\"[\\[68\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68)\n\n#### 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=14 \"Edit section: 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation\")\\]\n\nSuresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-judge [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\") bench consisting of [G. S. Singhvi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/G._S._Singhvi \"G. S. Singhvi\") and [S. J. Mukhopadhaya](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S._J._Mukhopadhaya \"S. J. Mukhopadhaya\") overturned the Delhi High Court case *[Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_v._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi \"Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi\")* and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.\n\nThis ruling was despite the urging of a group of mental health professionals who filed a collection of written submissions to the Supreme court with commentary on the case grounded in their expert opinion[\\[69\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-69) The mental health professionals noted that they frequently see LGBT or queer clients who suffer significant psychological distress—depression, anxiety, and more—due to the threat and social censure posed by IPC 377. These mental health professionals argued that IPC 377 causes LGBT and queer individuals to feel that they are \"criminals\", and that this status is a significant part of their psychological distress.\n\nThe United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay[\\[70\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-70) voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it \"a significant step backwards\" for the country. In the wake of [Indian Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\")'s ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief [Ban Ki-moon](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ban_Ki-moon \"Ban Ki-moon\") stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals.[\\[71\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-71)\n\nSoon after the judgement, [Sonia Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sonia_Gandhi \"Sonia Gandhi\"), President of the then ruling [Congress party](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Congress_party \"Congress party\"), asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-president, [Rahul Gandhi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rahul_Gandhi \"Rahul Gandhi\") also wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights.[\\[72\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-72) In July 2014, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju in the [BJP](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bharatiya_Janata_Party \"Bharatiya Janata Party\") led [Central government](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Central_government \"Central government\") told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a decision regarding Section 377 of IPC can be taken only after pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court.[\\[73\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-73) However, on 13 January 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, appearing on NDTV, stated, \"We \\[BJP\\] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward.\"[\\[74\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-74)\n\n#### 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=15 \"Edit section: 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition\")\\]\n\nOn 2 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Naz_Foundation_\\(India\\)_Trust \"Naz Foundation (India) Trust\") and others came for hearing in the [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_court \"Supreme court\"). The three-member bench headed by the [Chief Justice of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chief_Justice_of_India \"Chief Justice of India\") [T. S. Thakur](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/T._S._Thakur \"T. S. Thakur\") said that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench.[\\[17\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17)\n\n#### Right to Privacy verdict\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=16 \"Edit section: Right to Privacy verdict\")\\]\n\nOn 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the [Right to Privacy verdict](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Right_to_Privacy_verdict \"Right to Privacy verdict\"). In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a \"discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy.\" In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, [Justice Chandrachud](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud \"Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud\") (who authored for Justices [Khehar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Jagdish_Singh_Khehar \"Jagdish Singh Khehar\"), [Agarwal](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rajesh_Kumar_Agrawal \"Rajesh Kumar Agrawal\"), [Abdul Nazeer](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S._Abdul_Nazeer \"S. Abdul Nazeer\") and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. [Justice Kaul](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sanjay_Kishan_Kaul \"Sanjay Kishan Kaul\") agreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the [Constitution of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Constitution_of_India \"Constitution of India\").[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18)\n\n> Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18)\n> \n> ...Their rights are not \"so-called\" but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine. They inhere in the right to life. They dwell in privacy and dignity. They constitute the essence of liberty and freedom. Sexual orientation is an essential component of identity. Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.[\\[18\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18)\n\nHowever, as the curative petition (challenging Section 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts have suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the ground-work for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the [High Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/High_court \"High court\"), thereby decriminalizing [homosexual sex](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homosexual_sexual_practices \"Homosexual sexual practices\").[\\[75\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-75)[\\[76\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-76)\n\n#### 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\n\\[[edit](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=17 \"Edit section: 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\")\\]\n\nIn 2018, after decades of [grassroots](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Grassroots \"Grassroots\") activism, the application of [section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code \"Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\") to private consensual sex between men was ruled unconstitutional by India's [Supreme Court](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Supreme_Court_of_India \"Supreme Court of India\"), effectively [decriminalizing](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Decriminalizing \"Decriminalizing\") homosexual activity.[\\[47\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\\[77\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-77)\n\nThe five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of chief justice [Dipak Misra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dipak_Misra \"Dipak Misra\") and justices [Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud \"Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud\"), [Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar \"Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar\"), [Indu Malhotra](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indu_Malhotra \"Indu Malhotra\"), and [Rohinton Fali Nariman](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman \"Rohinton Fali Nariman\") started hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The [Union Government](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Government_of_India \"Government of India\") did not take a position on the issue and left it to the \"wisdom of the court\" to decide on Section 377. The petitioners invoked the right to [sexual privacy](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexual_and_reproductive_health_and_rights \"Sexual and reproductive health and rights\"), [dignity](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dignity \"Dignity\"), right against discrimination and freedom of expression to argue against the constitutionality of Section 377. After hearing the petitioners' plea for four days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018.[\\[78\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-78) Announcing the verdict, the court reversed its own 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the [IPC](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indian_Penal_Code \"Indian Penal Code\") to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act.[\\[79\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-79)[\\[80\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-80) In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law \"irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible.\"[\\[81\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-81)[\\[82\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-82)\n\n[*The Wire*](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Wire_\\(India\\) \"The Wire (India)\") drew parallels between the supreme court's judgement and [Privy Council](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Privy_Council_Office_\\(Canada\\) \"Privy Council Office (Canada)\")'s 1929 verdict in *[Edwards vs Canada (AG)](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Edwards_v_Canada_\\(AG\\) \"Edwards v Canada (AG)\")* that allowed for Women to sit in the [Senate of Canada](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Senate_of_Canada \"Senate of Canada\"). It compared the petitioners to the Canadian [*Famous Five*](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Famous_Five_\\(Canada\\) \"The Famous Five (Canada)\").[\\[83\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-auto-83)\n\nIn 2011, Italian film maker Adele Tulli, made *365 Without 377* which followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in [Bombay](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bombay \"Bombay\") celebrations.[\\[84\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-84) It won the [Turin](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Turin \"Turin\") LGBT Film Fest award in 2011.[\\[85\\]](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_note-85)\n\n- [LGBT rights in Bangladesh](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Bangladesh \"LGBT rights in Bangladesh\")\n- [LGBT rights in India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_India \"LGBT rights in India\")\n- [LGBT rights in Myanmar](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Myanmar \"LGBT rights in Myanmar\")\n- [LGBT rights in Pakistan](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Pakistan \"LGBT rights in Pakistan\")\n- [LGBT rights in Sri Lanka](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_Sri_Lanka \"LGBT rights in Sri Lanka\")\n  - [Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code \"Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code\")\n- [Sodomy law](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sodomy_law \"Sodomy law\")\n- [LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/LGBT_rights_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations \"LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations\")\n\n1. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-1)\n   Chua, Lynette J.; Gilbert, David (2016). \"State violence, human-rights violations and the case of apwint of Myanmar\". *Gender, Violence and the State in Asia*. Taylor & Francis. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781317325949](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781317325949 \"Special:BookSources\/9781317325949\")\n   \n   .\n2. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-1)\n   Rao, Rahul (2020). *Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality*. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–9\\. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9780190865535](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9780190865535 \"Special:BookSources\/9780190865535\")\n   \n   .\n3. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-3)**\n   Gupta, Alok (2008). *This Alien Legacy: The Origins of \"Anti-Sodomy\" Laws in British Colonialism*. Human Rights Watch. p. 16. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781564324191](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781564324191 \"Special:BookSources\/9781564324191\")\n   \n   .\n4. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-3) [***e***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-4)\n   Stoddard, Eve; Collins, John (2016). *Social and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies*. Taylor & Francis. p. 135. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781317509776](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781317509776 \"Special:BookSources\/9781317509776\")\n   \n   .\n5. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1_5-0)**\n   McCann, Hannah; Monaghan, Whitney (2020). *Queer Theory Now*. Red Globe Press. p. 163. [ISBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISBN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISBN (identifier)\")\n   \n   [9781352007510](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:BookSources\/9781352007510 \"Special:BookSources\/9781352007510\")\n   \n   .\n6. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:83_6-0)**\n   [\"NDR 2022: Govt to repeal Section 377A, amend Constitution to protect marriage definition from legal challenges\"](https:\/\/www.todayonline.com\/singapore\/ndr-2022-section-377a-repeal-constitution-1974206). *TODAY*. Retrieved 21 August 2022.\n7. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:84_7-0)**\n   Auto, Hermes (21 August 2022). [\"NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Section 377A, decriminalise sex between men \\| The Straits Times\"](https:\/\/www.straitstimes.com\/singapore\/politics\/ndr-2022-govt-will-repeal-section-377a-decriminalise-sex-between-men). *www.straitstimes.com*. Retrieved 21 August 2022.\n8. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-3)\n   Elliott, Josh (6 September 2018). [\"India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't\"](https:\/\/globalnews.ca\/news\/4430721\/india-gay-sex-supreme-court-pakistan-bangladesh\/). *Global News*. Retrieved 19 January 2022.\n9. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-9)**\n   Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018). [\"SC decriminalises homosexuality\"](https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/todays-paper\/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality\/article24887363.ece). *The Hindu* – via www.thehindu.com.\n10. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-10)**\n    Pundir, Pallavi (6 September 2018). [\"I Am What I Am. Take Me as I Am\"](https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/i-am-what-i-am-take-me-as-i-am\/). *[Vice News](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Vice_News \"Vice News\")*. Retrieved 8 September 2018.\n11. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-11)**\n    [\"BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023\"](https:\/\/www.mha.gov.in\/sites\/default\/files\/250883_english_01042024.pdf) (PDF).\n12. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-12)**\n    [\"Delhi high court decriminalizes homosexuality\"](https:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Politics\/sl3bjL7PX8MzUeOhPGejyI\/Delhi-high-court-decriminalizes-homosexuality.html). *www.livemint.com*. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n13. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-13)**\n    [\"Indian court decriminalises homosexuality in Delhi\"](https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2009\/jul\/02\/homosexuality-decriminalised-delhi-india). *the Guardian*. Associated Press. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n14. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-14)**\n    Nidal Al-Mughrabi. [\"Delhi High Court overturns ban on gay sex\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20180710195502\/https:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/idINIndia-40752720090702). *IN*. Archived from [the original](https:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/idINIndia-40752720090702) on 10 July 2018. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n15. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-15)**\n    Monalisa (11 December 2013). [\"Policy\"](https:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Politics\/FHDQ9yB2jRJMsOlNCQrkgL\/Supreme-Court-to-rule-on-legality-of-gay-sex-today.html). *Livemint*. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n16. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-16)**\n    Venkatesan, J. (11 December 2013). [\"Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC verdict decriminalising gay sex\"](https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-hc-verdict-decriminalising-gay-sex\/article5446939.ece). *The Hindu*. [ISSN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISSN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISSN (identifier)\") [0971-751X](https:\/\/search.worldcat.org\/issn\/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n17. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-1)\n    [\"Supreme Court agrees to hear petition on Section 376, refers matter to five-judge bench\"](http:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/india-news-india\/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-petition-on-section-377-refers-matter-to-five-judge-bench\/). 2 February 2016. Retrieved 2 February 2016.\n18. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-3)\n    [\"Right to Privacy Judgement\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20170828075957\/http:\/\/sci.gov.in\/pdf\/LU\/ALL%20WP\\(C\\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF). *Supreme Court of India*. 24 August 2017. pp. 121, 123–24\\. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/sci.gov.in\/pdf\/LU\/ALL%20WP\\(C\\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF) on 28 August 2017.\n19. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-19)**\n    Balakrishnan, Pulapre (25 August 2017). [\"Endgame for Section 377?\"](https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/endgame-for-section-377\/article19555379.ece). *The Hindu*. [ISSN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ISSN_\\(identifier\\) \"ISSN (identifier)\") [0971-751X](https:\/\/search.worldcat.org\/issn\/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n20. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-20)**\n    [\"Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place\"](https:\/\/www.firstpost.com\/india\/supreme-court-rights-old-judicial-wrongs-in-landmark-right-to-privacy-verdict-shows-state-its-rightful-place-3984011.html). *www.firstpost.com*. 29 August 2017. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n21. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-21)**\n    [\"Right to Privacy Judgment Makes Section 377 Very Hard to Defend, Says Judge Who Read It Down\"](https:\/\/thewire.in\/gender\/ap-shah-377-right-to-privacy). *The Wire*. Retrieved 10 July 2018.\n22. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-22)** [Judgment](https:\/\/www.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2016\/14961\/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf), par. 156.\n23. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-23)**\n    [\"Supreme Court Scraps Section 377; 'Majoritarian Views Cannot Dictate Rights,' Says CJI\"](https:\/\/thewire.in\/law\/supreme-court-scraps-section-377-majoritarian-views-cannot-dictate-rights-says-cji). *The Wire*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n24. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-24)**\n    [\"Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code\"](https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1836974\/). *Indian Kanoon*. Retrieved 30 October 2017.\n25. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-25)**\n    [\"The Indian Penal Code, 1860\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20070114135350\/http:\/\/chddistrictcourts.gov.in\/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF). *Chandigarh District Court*. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/chddistrictcourts.gov.in\/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF) on 14 January 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2017.\n26. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-26)**\n    [\"HC pulls up government for homosexuality doublespeak\"](https:\/\/www.indiatoday.in\/latest-headlines\/story\/hc-pulls-up-government-for-homosexuality-doublespeak-30548-2008-09-26). *India Today*. 26 September 2008.\n27. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-27)**\n    [\"Rare unity: Religious leaders come out in support of Section 377\"](http:\/\/www.dnaindia.com\/india\/report-rare-unity-religious-leaders-come-out-in-support-of-section-377-1933612). *DNAIndia.com*. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n28. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-28)**\n    [\"Section 377 and the law: What courts have said about homosexuality over time\"](https:\/\/www.hindustantimes.com\/india-news\/section-377-and-the-law-what-courts-have-said-about-homosexuality-over-time\/story-66xXSTFILnBYo5hE7yNaKL.html). *hindustantimes.com\/*. 5 February 2018. Retrieved 24 September 2018.\n29. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-29)**\n    [\"Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC\"](https:\/\/www.outlookindia.com\/newswire\/story\/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc\/613434). *outlookindia.com\/*. Retrieved 24 September 2018.\n30. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-30)**\n    Thomas, Shibu (29 September 2016). [\"14% of those arrested under section 377 last year were minors\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/city\/mumbai\/14-of-those-arrested-under-section-377-last-year-were-minors\/articleshow\/54573741.cms). *The Times Of India*. Retrieved 4 November 2017.\n31. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-31)** [India: Repeal Colonial-Era Sodomy Law](https:\/\/hrw.org\/english\/docs\/2006\/01\/11\/india12398.htm), report from [Human Rights Watch](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Human_Rights_Watch \"Human Rights Watch\"), 11 January 2006.\n32. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-32)**\n    [\"Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code\"](http:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/970675\/). *IndianKanoon.org*. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n33. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-33)**\n    [\"Archived copy\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090725200649\/http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REport%201). Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REport%201) on 25 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n    \n    `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title \"Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title\"))\n34. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-34)**\n    [\"Archived copy\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20070202173932\/http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REPORT%202003). Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.altlawforum.org\/PUBLICATIONS\/PUCL%20REPORT%202003) on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 5 February 2007.\n    \n    `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title \"Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title\"))\n35. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-35)**\n    Ramesh, Randeep (18 September 2006). [\"India's literary elite call for anti-gay law to be scrapped\"](https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2006\/sep\/18\/gayrights.books). *The Guardian*. London. Retrieved 1 September 2007.\n36. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Mexico_AIDS_conference_36-0)**\n    Kounteya Sinha (9 August 2008). [\"Legalise homosexuality: Ramadoss\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/Legalise-homosexuality-Ramadoss\/articleshow\/3342815.cms). *[The Times of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Times_of_India \"The Times of India\")*. [Archived](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121025201512\/http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2008-08-09\/india\/27931000_1_hiv-epidemic-national-aids-control-organization-msms) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n37. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-37)**\n    Vikram Doctor (2 July 2008). [\"Reverse swing: It may be an open affair for gays, lesbians\"](http:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/News\/News_By_Industry\/Reverse_swing_It_may_be_an_open_affair_for_gays_lesbians\/articleshow\/3186187.cms). [The Economic Times](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Economic_Times \"The Economic Times\"). Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n38. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-38)**\n    Shibu Thomas (25 July 2008). [\"Unnatural-sex law needs relook: Bombay HC\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/Unnatural-sex_law_needs_relook_Mumbai_HC\/rssarticleshow\/3276516.cms). *The Times of India*. Retrieved 12 February 2009.\n39. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-39)**\n    [\"Ban on gay sex violates international law\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20180908015737\/https:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/india-rights-gay-un\/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212). *Reuters*. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/in.reuters.com\/article\/india-rights-gay-un\/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212) on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2017.\n40. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-40)**\n    Rameshan, Radhika (13 December 2011). [\"BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexuality\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20131216103934\/http:\/\/www.telegraphindia.com\/1131214\/jsp\/nation\/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw). *The Telegraph*. Archived from [the original](https:\/\/www.telegraphindia.com\/1131214\/jsp\/nation\/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw) on 16 December 2013.\n41. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:0a_41-0)**\n    Jyoti, Dhrubo (12 December 2013). [\"Political Leaders React To Supreme Court Judgement On Sec 377\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140511041143\/http:\/\/www.gaylaxymag.com\/latest-news\/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377\/#gs.jTP9N1c). *Gaylaxy*. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.gaylaxymag.com\/latest-news\/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377\/#gs.jTP9N1c) on 11 May 2014. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n42. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-42)**\n    [\"Homosexuality Is Unethical And Immoral: Samajwadi Party\"](http:\/\/www.news18.com\/videos\/politics\/samajwadi-party-on-section-377-655768.html). *News 18*. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n43. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-43)**\n    [\"Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC\"](https:\/\/www.outlookindia.com\/newswire\/story\/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc\/613434). *www.outlookindia.com*. Retrieved 11 September 2018.\n44. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-44)**\n    [\"Being gay is against Hindutva, it needs a cure: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/being-gay-is-against-hindutva-it-needs-a-cure-bjp-mp-subramanian-swamy\/articleshow\/64927333.cms). *The Times of India*. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2020.\n45. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-45)**\n    [\"Section 377: Homosexuality against Hindutva, cannot celebrate it, says BJP leader Subramanian Swamy \\| India News\"](https:\/\/www.timesnownews.com\/india\/article\/section-377-homosexuality-hindutva-gay-sex-lgbt-subramanian-swamy-supreme-court-of-india-section-377-curative-petition-article-377-sec-377-ipc-carnal\/252246). *www.timesnownews.com*. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 11 April 2019.\n46. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-46)**\n    [\"Indian Union Muslim League opposes Supreme Court verdict, says it is against Indian culture\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/city\/trichy\/indian-union-muslim-league-opposes-sc-verdict-says-it-is-against-indian-culture\/articleshow\/65712288.cms). *Times of India*.\n47. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-1) [***c***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-2) [***d***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-3)\n    Hans, Namit (14 February 2017). [\"Increasing support for gay rights from BJP leaders. A rainbow in sight?\"](http:\/\/www.catchnews.com\/national-news\/most-indian-political-parties-back-lgbt-rights-a-rainbow-in-sight-1449397534.html). *Catch News*. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n48. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-48)**\n    Roy, Sandip (3 February 2016). [\"The BJP And Its 377 Problem\"](http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.in\/2016\/02\/03\/section-377_0_n_9146832.html). *HuffPost*. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n49. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-49)**\n    [\"BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC\"](http:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Leisure\/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO\/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). 14 January 2015.\n50. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-50)**\n    [\"Statements of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on Section 377 exposes character of Congress leaders: Baba Ramdev\"](http:\/\/www.dnaindia.com\/india\/report-statements-of-sonia-rahul-gandhi-and-kapil-sibal-on-section-377-exposes-character-of-congress-leaders-baba-ramdev-1934573). *DNAIndia.com*. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n51. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-51)**\n    [\"Court should take relook at Section 377 after today's verdict: Chidambaram\"](http:\/\/www.uniindia.com\/court-should-take-relook-at-section-377-after-today-s-verdict-chidambaram\/india\/news\/969519.html). *United News of India*. 24 August 2017. Retrieved 4 November 2017.\n52. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-52)**\n    Tiwari, Ravish (19 March 2016). [\"Section 377: Unlike RSS, BJP shies away from taking a stand on homosexuality\"](https:\/\/economictimes.indiatimes.com\/news\/politics-and-nation\/section-377-unlike-rss-bjp-shies-away-from-taking-a-stand-on-homosexuality\/articleshow\/51464248.cms). *The Economic Times*. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n53. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-53)**\n    [\"Section 377: Where does each party stand?\"](http:\/\/www.thenewsminute.com\/article\/section-377-where-does-each-party-stand-36408). *The News Minute*. 29 November 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2017.\n54. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-1)\n    [\"Shashi Tharoor's bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha\"](http:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/india-news-india\/shashi-tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-homosexuality-defeated-in-ls\/). *IndianExpress.com*. 18 December 2015. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n55. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-55)**\n    [\"BJP thwarting Bill on gays: Tharoor\"](http:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-gay-sex-defeated-again\/article8342075.ece). *The Hindu*. 11 March 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016.\n56. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Chronology_56-0)**\n    [\"Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090705183512\/http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights\/96152-3.html). CNN-IBN. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights\/96152-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n57. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-57)**\n    Kian Ganz (2 July 2009). [\"Lawyers Collective overturns anti-gay law\"](http:\/\/www.legallyindia.com\/2009070276\/News\/lawyers-collective-overturns-anti-gay-law). *legallyindia.com*. Retrieved 9 April 2011.\n58. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-58)**\n    Sheela Bhatt (3 February 2006). [\"Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC\"](http:\/\/us.rediff.com\/news\/2006\/feb\/03gay.htm?q=tp&file=.htm). Rediff News. Retrieved 7 July 2009.\n59. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-59)**\n    Shibu Thomas (20 May 2008). [\"Delhi HC to take up PIL on LGBT rights\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/Delhi-HC-to-take-up-PIL-on-gay-rights\/articleshow\/3054907.cms). *[The Times of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Times_of_India \"The Times of India\")*. [Archived](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121025121052\/http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2008-05-20\/india\/27743991_1_decriminalise-homosexuality-gay-couple-pil-on-gay-rights) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009.\n60. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-60)**\n    [\"Section 377: The famous and fearless 5 who convinced SC - Times of India ►\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/section-377-the-famous-and-fearless-5-who-convinced-sc\/articleshow\/62421886.cms). *The Times of India*. Retrieved 26 September 2018.\n61. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-61)**\n    Schultz, Kai (2 June 2018). [\"Gay in India, Where Progress Has Come Only With Risk\"](https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/06\/02\/world\/asia\/gay-in-india-where-progress-has-come-only-with-risk.html). *The New York Times*. Retrieved 26 September 2018.\n62. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-62)**\n    [\"Centre divided on punishment of homosexuality\"](http:\/\/www.dnaindia.com\/report.asp?newsid=1165375). DNA.\n63. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-63)**\n    [\"Delhi high court all set to rule on same-sex activity petition - Livemint\"](http:\/\/www.livemint.com\/2008\/11\/07220242\/Delhi-high-court-all-set-to-ru.html). *www.Livemint.com*. Retrieved 30 December 2017.\n64. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-64)**\n    [\"Moily signals rethink on anti-gay law\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121025201523\/http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2009-06-12\/india\/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi). *[The Times of India](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Times_of_India \"The Times of India\")*. 12 June 2009. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/2009-06-12\/india\/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi) on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009.\n65. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-1)\n    [\"Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090705172824\/http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex\/96148-3.html). [CNN-IBN](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/CNN-IBN \"CNN-IBN\"). Archived from [the original](http:\/\/ibnlive.in.com\/news\/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex\/96148-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n66. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-BBC1_66-0)**\n    [\"Gay sex decriminalised in India\"](https:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/2\/hi\/south_asia\/8129836.stm). [BBC](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/BBC \"BBC\"). 2 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n67. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-Judgement_67-0)**\n    [\"Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20090826035913\/http:\/\/lobis.nic.in\/dhc\/APS\/judgement\/02-07-2009\/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF). Delhi High Court. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/lobis.nic.in\/dhc\/APS\/judgement\/02-07-2009\/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF) on 26 August 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.\n68. ^ [***a***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-0) [***b***](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-1)\n    [\"Verdict reserved on appeals in gay sex case\"](http:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/article3250607.ece). *The Hindu*. New Delhi, India. 27 March 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.\n69. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-69)**\n    Shesadri, Shekha; et al. [\"Mental Health Professionals--Written Submissions\"](http:\/\/orinam.net\/377\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/SC_MentalHealthProfessionals_WrittenSubmissions.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n70. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-70)**\n    [\"United Nations Criticizes SC Verdict on Sec 377\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20140221155213\/http:\/\/www.enewspaperofindia.com\/News\/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx). *enewspaper of India*. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.enewspaperofindia.com\/News\/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx) on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n71. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-71)**\n    [\"UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for equality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20131216050212\/http:\/\/articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com\/2013-12-12\/news\/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights). *The Economic Times*. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com\/2013-12-12\/news\/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights) on 16 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n72. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-72)**\n    [\"Rahul Gandhi too wants Section 377 to go, supports gay rights\"](https:\/\/www.indiatoday.in\/india\/north\/story\/rahul-gandhi-wants-section-377-to-go-supports-gay-rights-220587-2013-12-12). *India Today Online New Delhi*. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n73. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-73)**\n    Press Trust of India (22 July 2014). [\"No plans to amend Section 377 till SC decision: Modi govt\"](http:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/india-others\/no-plans-to-amend-section-377-till-sc-decision-govt\/). *The Indian Express*. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n74. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-74)**\n    Ratnam, Dhamini (14 January 2015). [\"BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC\"](http:\/\/www.livemint.com\/Leisure\/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO\/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). *Mint*. Retrieved 22 March 2021.\n75. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-75)**\n    [\"Legal experts on 377 and Right to Privacy\"](http:\/\/www.livelaw.in\/privacy-bench-affirms-lgbt-rights-disagrees-with-suresh-koushal-judgment-on-377-ipc\/). 24 August 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.\n76. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-76)**\n    [\"The Hindu on 377 and Right to Privacy\"](http:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/todays-paper\/tp-opinion\/target-section-377\/article19563070.ece). *[The Hindu](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Hindu \"The Hindu\")*. 25 August 2017.\n77. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-77)**\n    [\"India Just Decriminalized Gay Sex\"](https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/nishitajha\/india-section-377-gay-sex). *BuzzFeed News*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n78. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-78)**\n    [\"Section 377 Verdict By Supreme Court Tomorrow: 10-Point Guide\"](https:\/\/www.ndtv.com\/india-news\/section-377-supreme-court-verdict-tomorrow-1911822). *NDTV.com*. Retrieved 5 September 2018.\n79. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-79)**\n    [\"One India, Equal In Love: Supreme Court Ends Section 377\"](https:\/\/www.ndtv.com\/india-news\/homosexuality-no-longer-a-crime-in-india-supreme-court-ends-controversial-section-377-1912202?browserpush=true). *NDTV.com*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n80. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-80)**\n    [\"India decriminalises gay sex in landmark verdict\"](https:\/\/www.aljazeera.com\/news\/2018\/09\/india-decriminalises-gay-sex-landmark-verdict-180906051219637.html). *www.aljazeera.com*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n81. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-81)**\n    [\"'Gay sex is not a crime,' says Supreme Court in historic judgment\"](https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/india\/gay-sex-is-not-a-crime-says-supreme-court-in-historic-judgement\/articleshow\/65695172.cms). *The Times of India*. Retrieved 6 September 2018.\n82. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-82)**\n    [\"NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. \\[2018\\] INSC 746 (6 September 2018)\"](http:\/\/www.liiofindia.org\/in\/cases\/cen\/INSC\/2018\/746.html). Legal Information Institute of India. Retrieved 1 April 2020.\n83. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-auto_83-0)**\n    [\"From Canada to India, 'Valiant Five' Have Secured a Marginalised Group's Rights\"](https:\/\/thewire.in\/rights\/section-377-persons-case-canada-lgbt). *The Wire*. Retrieved 12 September 2018.\n84. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-84)**\n    [\"365 without 377 - Adele Tulli\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190514232556\/http:\/\/www.queerdocumentaries.com\/en\/documentaries\/documentary\/365-without-377). *www.queerdocumentaries.com*. Archived from [the original](http:\/\/www.queerdocumentaries.com\/en\/documentaries\/documentary\/365-without-377) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.\n85. **[^](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Section_377#cite_ref-85)**\n    Paternò, Cristiana (11 February 2019). [\"Adele Tulli: \"Italy is a lab for gender\"\"](https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190514232553\/https:\/\/news.cinecitta.com\/EN\/en\/news\/104\/77714\/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx). *news.cinecitta.com*. Archived from [the original](https:\/\/news.cinecitta.com\/EN\/en\/news\/104\/77714\/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.\n\n- McGoldrick, Dominic (2019). \"Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India\". *Human Rights Law Review*. **19** (1): 173–185\\. [doi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Doi_\\(identifier\\) \"Doi (identifier)\"):[10\\.1093\/hrlr\/ngy041](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093%2Fhrlr%2Fngy041).\n- Sanders, Douglas E. (2009). [\"377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia\"](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). *Asian Journal of Comparative Law*. **4**: 1–49\\. [doi](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Doi_\\(identifier\\) \"Doi (identifier)\"):[10\\.1017\/S2194607800000417](https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). [S2CID](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/S2CID_\\(identifier\\) \"S2CID (identifier)\") [154403178](https:\/\/api.semanticscholar.org\/CorpusID:154403178).\n\n- [Male-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in South Asia: an analysis of the politico-legal framework](http:\/\/www.risksandresponsibilities.org\/ArvindNarrain.pdf), Arvind Narrain & Brototi Dutta, 2006.\n- [Official website of the Naz Foundation of (India) Trust](https:\/\/archive.today\/20120630065247\/http:\/\/www.nazindia.org\/advocacy.htm) (archived)\n- [Section 377 – Indian Penal Code, 1860](http:\/\/devgan.in\/ipc\/section\/377\/) (Mobile)","meta_canonical":null}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

28 days ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	1 months ago (distributed domain, exempt)
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property	Value
URL	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377
Last Crawled	2026-03-17 04:46:28 (28 days ago)
First Indexed	2013-12-12 01:19:38 (12 years ago)
HTTP Status Code	200
Meta Title	Section 377 - Wikipedia
Meta Description	null
Meta Canonical	null
Boilerpipe Text	Section 377 is a British colonial Penal Code provision that criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per a Supreme Court of India judgement since 2018, the Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years' imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar . [ 1 ] In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death. [ 2 ] Although the act of sodomy was sometimes prosecuted in England under British common law , it was first codified in the British empire as Section 377 in the Indian Penal Code as "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" in 1860. Section 377 was then exported to other colonies and even to England itself, providing the legal model for the act of ' buggery ' in the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). [ 2 ] Alok Gupta wrote for a Human Rights Watch report in 2008 that the British intended for the code to prevent Christian colonial subjects from " corruption ", and to condition colonized subjects undergoing Christianization to conform to colonial authority. [ 3 ] This consequently had a big impact on colonial-era sexuality in India. Although Section 377 did not explicitly include the word homosexual , it has been used to prosecute homosexual activity. The provision was introduced by authorities in the Raj in 1862 as Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and functioned as the legal impetus behind the criminalization of what was referred to as, "unnatural offences" throughout the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 1 ] In Singapore , a similar law called Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code was introduced in 1938 by the colonial government that had also criminalized sex between men. In 2022, then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had announced that the provision would be repealed. [ 6 ] [ 7 ] It was repealed on 29 November 2022 when the bill passed in Parliament. [ citation needed ] Where Section 377 remains in force [ edit ] Although most colonies have since gained independence through statehood since Section 377 was implemented, it remains in the penal codes of the following countries, all of which were formerly a part of the British Empire : Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was a section of the Indian Penal Code introduced in 1861 during the British rule of India . Modeled on the Buggery Act 1533 , it made sexual activities "against the order of nature" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual homosexual sex between adults was unconstitutional, "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary", [ 9 ] but that Section 377 remained in force relating to sex with minors , non-consensual sexual acts, and bestiality . [ 10 ] Section 377 was fully replaced along with the rest of the Indian Penal Code by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [ 11 ] on 1 July 2024. Portions of the section were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to gay sex by the Delhi High Court in July 2009. [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] That judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court of India (SC) on 11 December 2013 in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation . The Court held that amending or repealing section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary. [ 15 ] [ 16 ] On 6 February 2016, a three-member bench of the Court reviewed curative petitions submitted by the Naz Foundation and others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench. [ 17 ] On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution in the landmark Puttaswamy judgement. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the fundamental rights and that the rights of the LGBT population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine. [ 18 ] This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377. [ 19 ] [ 20 ] [ 21 ] In January 2018, the Supreme Court of India agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 Naz Foundation judgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India that Section 377 was unconstitutional "in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex". [ 22 ] [ 23 ] The judgment was given by a five-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra , Justices R. F. Nariman , D. Y. Chandrachud , A. M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra . [ citation needed ] 377. Unnatural offences : Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation : Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. [ 24 ] [ 25 ] Participant carrying a poster on Section 377 during Bhubaneswar Pride Parade In 2008 Additional Solicitor General PP Malhotra said: " Homosexuality is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. [Decriminalising homosexuality] may create [a] breach of peace. If it is allowed then [the] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society." This view was shared by the Home Ministry. [ 26 ] 11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it "the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other's religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment" The Daily News and Analysis article added that Baba Ramdev , India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not "turn homosexual", stated he could "cure" homosexuality through yoga and called it "a bad addiction". [ 27 ] Opposition and criticism [ edit ] The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare opposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti- HIV/AIDS efforts. [ 28 ] [ 29 ] According to the NCRB , in 2015, 1,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women. [ 30 ] Human Rights Watch also argued that the law had been used to harass HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, as well as sex workers , homosexuals , and other groups at risk of the disease, [ 31 ] even though those found guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that relate to Section 377 may face a life sentence under a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC. [ 32 ] The People's Union for Civil Liberties has published two reports on the rights violations faced by sexual minorities [ 33 ] and, in particular, transsexuals in India. [ 34 ] In 2006, Section 377 came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures, [ 35 ] most prominently Vikram Seth . The law subsequently drew even more criticism from several ministers, most prominently Anbumani Ramadoss [ 36 ] and Oscar Fernandes . [ 37 ] In 2008, a judge of the Bombay High Court also called for the scrapping of the law. [ 38 ] The United Nations also said that the ban violated international law. United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay stated that "Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified", and that the decision "represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights.", voicing hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure. [ 39 ] View of political parties [ edit ] Opposition to repeal [ edit ] Rajnath Singh , a member of the ruling party BJP and the Home Minister, is on record shortly after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is "unambiguously" in favour of the law, also claiming that "We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported." [ 40 ] Yogi Adityanath , BJP MP , welcomed the 2013 verdict and will "oppose any move to decriminalise homosexuality." [ 41 ] The Samajwadi Party made it clear that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality "unethical and immoral". [ 42 ] Ram Gopal Yadav stated that they support the Supreme Court decision as "It is completely against the culture of our nation." [ 4 ] The Congress party-led UPA government also supported the law during the initial Naz Foundation case, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalized. [ 43 ] Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy said that homosexuality was not a normal thing and was against Hindutva . [ 44 ] He went on to say that it was "a danger to our national security" and that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. He added that "there is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll be a cover for pedophiles and a huge rise in HIV cases." [ 45 ] After the 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court, the Indian Union Muslim League continued to oppose decriminalisation, saying 'homosexuality is against Indian culture'. [ 46 ] Former Finance Minister and BJP member Arun Jaitley said that "Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalized consensual sex between gay adults" and "When millions of people the world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed." [ 47 ] [ 48 ] BJP spokesperson Shaina NC said her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. "We are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward." [ 49 ] In December 2013, Indian National Congress President Rahul Gandhi came out in support of LGBT rights and said that "every individual had the right to choose". He also said "These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, freedom of expression. So let that be. I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement", he said. The LGBT rights movement in India was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections. [ 47 ] Sonia Gandhi also shared a similar view. [ 50 ] Senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram stated that the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation judgement must be quickly reversed. [ 4 ] He also said that "Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck down or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement by Justice AP Shah." [ 51 ] The RSS revised its position, the leader Dattatreya Hosabale reportedly saying, "no criminalisation, but no glorification either." [ 52 ] RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat also came out in support of the LGBTQIA+ community stating that they should be accepted as an integral part of society. After the 2013 verdict, the Aam Aadmi Party put on their website: The Aam Aadmi party is disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Section 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the Delhi High Court on the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the police. This not only violates the human rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will also step in to repeal this archaic law. [ 47 ] Brinda Karat of the Communist Party said the SC order was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is wrong. [ 53 ] Shivanand Tiwari , leader of Janata Dal United , did not support the Supreme Court decision, calling homosexuality practical and constitutional. He added that "This happens in society and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Court trying to stop them?" [ 4 ] Derek O'Brien of the Trinamool Congress said that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal world we live in today. [ 4 ] On 18 December 2015, Lok Sabha member Shashi Tharoor of the Indian National Congress introduced a private member's bill to replace Section 377 in the Indian Penal Code and decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24. [ 54 ] For his part, Tharoor expressed surprise at the bill's rejection at this early stage. He said that he did not have time to rally support and that he will attempt to reintroduce the bill. [ 54 ] In March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's bill to decriminalize homosexuality but was voted down for the second time. [ 55 ] 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [ edit ] The judgement of the High Court of Delhi of 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults The movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan in 1991. Their historic publication Less than Gay: A Citizen's Report , spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India' chronicles this early history. As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust , an activist group, which filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking the legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults. [ 56 ] The Naz Foundation worked with a legal team from the Lawyers Collective to engage in court. [ 57 ] In 2003, the Delhi High Court refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners, had no locus standi in the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the Delhi High Court in the absence of a petitioner with standing. Naz Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit. [ 58 ] Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called 'Voices Against 377', which supported the demand to 'read down' section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview. [ 59 ] There was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with Navtej Singh Johar and drew from his personal experiences while protesting. Ritu Dalmia also demonstrated keen activism. Aman Nath , a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Section 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg died. [ 60 ] Ayesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent e-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out about her sexuality. Over time, she gained the courage to come out and challenge Section 377. [ 61 ] In May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the Delhi High Court , but the Government was undecided on its position, with The Ministry of Home Affairs maintaining a contradictory position to that of the Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to homosexuality . [ 62 ] On 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move. [ 63 ] On 12 June 2009, India's new law minister Veerappa Moily agreed that Section 377 might be outdated. [ 64 ] Eventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section, [ 65 ] legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults. [ 66 ] The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law. The two-judge bench went on to hold that: If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as 'deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised. Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination. This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual. [ 67 ] The court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors. [ 65 ] A batch of appeals were filed with the Supreme Court , challenging the Delhi High Court judgment. On 27 March 2012, the Supreme Court reserved verdict on these. [ 68 ] After initially opposing the judgement, the Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati decided not to file any appeal against the Delhi High Court 's verdict, stating, "insofar as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private [before it was struck down by the High Court] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers." [ 68 ] 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation [ edit ] Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This ruling was despite the urging of a group of mental health professionals who filed a collection of written submissions to the Supreme court with commentary on the case grounded in their expert opinion [ 69 ] The mental health professionals noted that they frequently see LGBT or queer clients who suffer significant psychological distress—depression, anxiety, and more—due to the threat and social censure posed by IPC 377. These mental health professionals argued that IPC 377 causes LGBT and queer individuals to feel that they are "criminals", and that this status is a significant part of their psychological distress. The United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay [ 70 ] voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it "a significant step backwards" for the country. In the wake of Indian Supreme Court 's ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief Ban Ki-moon stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals. [ 71 ] Soon after the judgement, Sonia Gandhi , President of the then ruling Congress party , asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-president, Rahul Gandhi also wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights. [ 72 ] In July 2014, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju in the BJP led Central government told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a decision regarding Section 377 of IPC can be taken only after pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court. [ 73 ] However, on 13 January 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, appearing on NDTV, stated, "We [BJP] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward." [ 74 ] 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition [ edit ] On 2 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the Naz Foundation and others came for hearing in the Supreme Court . The three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice of India T. S. Thakur said that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench. [ 17 ] Right to Privacy verdict [ edit ] On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the Right to Privacy verdict . In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a "discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy." In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, Justice Chandrachud (who authored for Justices Khehar , Agarwal , Abdul Nazeer and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. Justice Kaul agreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the Constitution of India . [ 18 ] Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. [ 18 ] ...Their rights are not "so-called" but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine. They inhere in the right to life. They dwell in privacy and dignity. They constitute the essence of liberty and freedom. Sexual orientation is an essential component of identity. Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination. [ 18 ] However, as the curative petition (challenging Section 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts have suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the ground-work for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the High Court , thereby decriminalizing homosexual sex . [ 75 ] [ 76 ] 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [ edit ] In 2018, after decades of grassroots activism, the application of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to private consensual sex between men was ruled unconstitutional by India's Supreme Court , effectively decriminalizing homosexual activity. [ 47 ] [ 77 ] The five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of chief justice Dipak Misra and justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud , Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar , Indu Malhotra , and Rohinton Fali Nariman started hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The Union Government did not take a position on the issue and left it to the "wisdom of the court" to decide on Section 377. The petitioners invoked the right to sexual privacy , dignity , right against discrimination and freedom of expression to argue against the constitutionality of Section 377. After hearing the petitioners' plea for four days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018. [ 78 ] Announcing the verdict, the court reversed its own 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the IPC to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act. [ 79 ] [ 80 ] In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law "irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible." [ 81 ] [ 82 ] The Wire drew parallels between the supreme court's judgement and Privy Council 's 1929 verdict in Edwards vs Canada (AG) that allowed for Women to sit in the Senate of Canada . It compared the petitioners to the Canadian Famous Five . [ 83 ] In 2011, Italian film maker Adele Tulli, made 365 Without 377 which followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in Bombay celebrations. [ 84 ] It won the Turin LGBT Film Fest award in 2011. [ 85 ] LGBT rights in Bangladesh LGBT rights in India LGBT rights in Myanmar LGBT rights in Pakistan LGBT rights in Sri Lanka Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code Sodomy law LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations ^ a b Chua, Lynette J.; Gilbert, David (2016). "State violence, human-rights violations and the case of apwint of Myanmar". Gender, Violence and the State in Asia . Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317325949 . ^ a b Rao, Rahul (2020). Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality . Oxford University Press. pp. 7– 9. ISBN 9780190865535 . ^ Gupta, Alok (2008). This Alien Legacy: The Origins of "Anti-Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism . Human Rights Watch. p. 16. ISBN 9781564324191 . ^ a b c d e Stoddard, Eve; Collins, John (2016). Social and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies . Taylor & Francis. p. 135. ISBN 9781317509776 . ^ McCann, Hannah; Monaghan, Whitney (2020). Queer Theory Now . Red Globe Press. p. 163. ISBN 9781352007510 . ^ "NDR 2022: Govt to repeal Section 377A, amend Constitution to protect marriage definition from legal challenges" . TODAY . Retrieved 21 August 2022 . ^ Auto, Hermes (21 August 2022). "NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Section 377A, decriminalise sex between men \| The Straits Times" . www.straitstimes.com . Retrieved 21 August 2022 . ^ a b c d Elliott, Josh (6 September 2018). "India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't" . Global News . Retrieved 19 January 2022 . ^ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018). "SC decriminalises homosexuality" . The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com. ^ Pundir, Pallavi (6 September 2018). "I Am What I Am. Take Me as I Am" . Vice News . Retrieved 8 September 2018 . ^ "BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023" (PDF) . ^ "Delhi high court decriminalizes homosexuality" . www.livemint.com . 2 July 2009 . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ "Indian court decriminalises homosexuality in Delhi" . the Guardian . Associated Press. 2 July 2009 . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ Nidal Al-Mughrabi. "Delhi High Court overturns ban on gay sex" . IN . Archived from the original on 10 July 2018 . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ Monalisa (11 December 2013). "Policy" . Livemint . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ Venkatesan, J. (11 December 2013). "Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC verdict decriminalising gay sex" . The Hindu . ISSN 0971-751X . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ a b "Supreme Court agrees to hear petition on Section 376, refers matter to five-judge bench" . 2 February 2016 . Retrieved 2 February 2016 . ^ a b c d "Right to Privacy Judgement" (PDF) . Supreme Court of India . 24 August 2017. pp. 121, 123– 24. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 August 2017. ^ Balakrishnan, Pulapre (25 August 2017). "Endgame for Section 377?" . The Hindu . ISSN 0971-751X . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ "Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place" . www.firstpost.com . 29 August 2017 . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ "Right to Privacy Judgment Makes Section 377 Very Hard to Defend, Says Judge Who Read It Down" . The Wire . Retrieved 10 July 2018 . ^ Judgment , par. 156. ^ "Supreme Court Scraps Section 377; 'Majoritarian Views Cannot Dictate Rights,' Says CJI" . The Wire . Retrieved 6 September 2018 . ^ "Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code" . Indian Kanoon . Retrieved 30 October 2017 . ^ "The Indian Penal Code, 1860" (PDF) . Chandigarh District Court . Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 January 2007 . Retrieved 30 October 2017 . ^ "HC pulls up government for homosexuality doublespeak" . India Today . 26 September 2008. ^ "Rare unity: Religious leaders come out in support of Section 377" . DNAIndia.com . 12 December 2013 . Retrieved 30 December 2017 . ^ "Section 377 and the law: What courts have said about homosexuality over time" . hindustantimes.com/ . 5 February 2018 . Retrieved 24 September 2018 . ^ "Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC" . outlookindia.com/ . Retrieved 24 September 2018 . ^ Thomas, Shibu (29 September 2016). "14% of those arrested under section 377 last year were minors" . The Times Of India . Retrieved 4 November 2017 . ^ India: Repeal Colonial-Era Sodomy Law , report from Human Rights Watch , 11 January 2006. ^ "Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code" . IndianKanoon.org . Retrieved 30 December 2017 . ^ "Archived copy" . Archived from the original on 25 July 2009 . Retrieved 2 July 2009 . {{ cite web }} : CS1 maint: archived copy as title ( link ) ^ "Archived copy" . Archived from the original on 2 February 2007 . Retrieved 5 February 2007 . {{ cite web }} : CS1 maint: archived copy as title ( link ) ^ Ramesh, Randeep (18 September 2006). "India's literary elite call for anti-gay law to be scrapped" . The Guardian . London . Retrieved 1 September 2007 . ^ Kounteya Sinha (9 August 2008). "Legalise homosexuality: Ramadoss" . The Times of India . Archived from the original on 25 October 2012 . Retrieved 2 July 2009 . ^ Vikram Doctor (2 July 2008). "Reverse swing: It may be an open affair for gays, lesbians" . The Economic Times . Retrieved 2 July 2009 . ^ Shibu Thomas (25 July 2008). "Unnatural-sex law needs relook: Bombay HC" . The Times of India . Retrieved 12 February 2009 . ^ "Ban on gay sex violates international law" . Reuters . 12 December 2013. Archived from the original on 8 September 2018 . Retrieved 4 November 2017 . ^ Rameshan, Radhika (13 December 2011). "BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexuality" . The Telegraph . Archived from the original on 16 December 2013. ^ Jyoti, Dhrubo (12 December 2013). "Political Leaders React To Supreme Court Judgement On Sec 377" . Gaylaxy . Archived from the original on 11 May 2014 . Retrieved 3 November 2017 . ^ "Homosexuality Is Unethical And Immoral: Samajwadi Party" . News 18 . 12 December 2013 . Retrieved 3 November 2017 . ^ "Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC" . www.outlookindia.com . Retrieved 11 September 2018 . ^ "Being gay is against Hindutva, it needs a cure: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy" . The Times of India . 10 July 2018 . Retrieved 15 September 2020 . ^ "Section 377: Homosexuality against Hindutva, cannot celebrate it, says BJP leader Subramanian Swamy \| India News" . www.timesnownews.com . 10 July 2018 . Retrieved 11 April 2019 . ^ "Indian Union Muslim League opposes Supreme Court verdict, says it is against Indian culture" . Times of India . ^ a b c d Hans, Namit (14 February 2017). "Increasing support for gay rights from BJP leaders. A rainbow in sight?" . Catch News . Retrieved 3 November 2017 . ^ Roy, Sandip (3 February 2016). "The BJP And Its 377 Problem" . HuffPost . Retrieved 3 November 2017 . ^ "BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC" . 14 January 2015. ^ "Statements of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on Section 377 exposes character of Congress leaders: Baba Ramdev" . DNAIndia.com . 13 December 2013 . Retrieved 30 December 2017 . ^ "Court should take relook at Section 377 after today's verdict: Chidambaram" . United News of India . 24 August 2017 . Retrieved 4 November 2017 . ^ Tiwari, Ravish (19 March 2016). "Section 377: Unlike RSS, BJP shies away from taking a stand on homosexuality" . The Economic Times . Retrieved 3 November 2017 . ^ "Section 377: Where does each party stand?" . The News Minute . 29 November 2015 . Retrieved 3 November 2017 . ^ a b "Shashi Tharoor's bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha" . IndianExpress.com . 18 December 2015 . Retrieved 30 December 2017 . ^ "BJP thwarting Bill on gays: Tharoor" . The Hindu . 11 March 2016 . Retrieved 22 May 2016 . ^ "Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights" . CNN-IBN. Archived from the original on 5 July 2009 . Retrieved 2 July 2009 . ^ Kian Ganz (2 July 2009). "Lawyers Collective overturns anti-gay law" . legallyindia.com . Retrieved 9 April 2011 . ^ Sheela Bhatt (3 February 2006). "Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC" . Rediff News . Retrieved 7 July 2009 . ^ Shibu Thomas (20 May 2008). "Delhi HC to take up PIL on LGBT rights" . The Times of India . Archived from the original on 25 October 2012 . Retrieved 7 July 2009 . ^ "Section 377: The famous and fearless 5 who convinced SC - Times of India ►" . The Times of India . Retrieved 26 September 2018 . ^ Schultz, Kai (2 June 2018). "Gay in India, Where Progress Has Come Only With Risk" . The New York Times . Retrieved 26 September 2018 . ^ "Centre divided on punishment of homosexuality" . DNA. ^ "Delhi high court all set to rule on same-sex activity petition - Livemint" . www.Livemint.com . Retrieved 30 December 2017 . ^ "Moily signals rethink on anti-gay law" . The Times of India . 12 June 2009. Archived from the original on 25 October 2012 . Retrieved 7 July 2009 . ^ a b "Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex" . CNN-IBN . Archived from the original on 5 July 2009 . Retrieved 2 July 2009 . ^ "Gay sex decriminalised in India" . BBC . 2 July 2009 . Retrieved 2 July 2009 . ^ "Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi" (PDF) . Delhi High Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 August 2009 . Retrieved 2 July 2009 . ^ a b "Verdict reserved on appeals in gay sex case" . The Hindu . New Delhi, India. 27 March 2012 . Retrieved 3 October 2012 . ^ Shesadri, Shekha; et al. "Mental Health Professionals--Written Submissions" (PDF) . Retrieved 22 March 2021 . ^ "United Nations Criticizes SC Verdict on Sec 377" . enewspaper of India . 12 December 2013. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014 . Retrieved 22 March 2021 . ^ "UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for equality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals" . The Economic Times . 12 December 2013. Archived from the original on 16 December 2013 . Retrieved 22 March 2021 . ^ "Rahul Gandhi too wants Section 377 to go, supports gay rights" . India Today Online New Delhi . 12 December 2013 . Retrieved 22 March 2021 . ^ Press Trust of India (22 July 2014). "No plans to amend Section 377 till SC decision: Modi govt" . The Indian Express . Retrieved 22 March 2021 . ^ Ratnam, Dhamini (14 January 2015). "BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC" . Mint . Retrieved 22 March 2021 . ^ "Legal experts on 377 and Right to Privacy" . 24 August 2017 . Retrieved 24 August 2017 . ^ "The Hindu on 377 and Right to Privacy" . The Hindu . 25 August 2017. ^ "India Just Decriminalized Gay Sex" . BuzzFeed News . Retrieved 6 September 2018 . ^ "Section 377 Verdict By Supreme Court Tomorrow: 10-Point Guide" . NDTV.com . Retrieved 5 September 2018 . ^ "One India, Equal In Love: Supreme Court Ends Section 377" . NDTV.com . Retrieved 6 September 2018 . ^ "India decriminalises gay sex in landmark verdict" . www.aljazeera.com . Retrieved 6 September 2018 . ^ " 'Gay sex is not a crime,' says Supreme Court in historic judgment" . The Times of India . Retrieved 6 September 2018 . ^ "NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. [2018] INSC 746 (6 September 2018)" . Legal Information Institute of India . Retrieved 1 April 2020 . ^ "From Canada to India, 'Valiant Five' Have Secured a Marginalised Group's Rights" . The Wire . Retrieved 12 September 2018 . ^ "365 without 377 - Adele Tulli" . www.queerdocumentaries.com . Archived from the original on 14 May 2019 . Retrieved 14 May 2019 . ^ Paternò, Cristiana (11 February 2019). "Adele Tulli: "Italy is a lab for gender" " . news.cinecitta.com . Archived from the original on 14 May 2019 . Retrieved 14 May 2019 . McGoldrick, Dominic (2019). "Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India". Human Rights Law Review . 19 (1): 173– 185. doi : 10.1093/hrlr/ngy041 . Sanders, Douglas E. (2009). "377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia" . Asian Journal of Comparative Law . 4 : 1– 49. doi : 10.1017/S2194607800000417 . S2CID 154403178 . Male-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in South Asia: an analysis of the politico-legal framework , Arvind Narrain & Brototi Dutta, 2006. Official website of the Naz Foundation of (India) Trust (archived) Section 377 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Mobile)
Markdown	[Jump to content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#bodyContent) Main menu Main menu move to sidebar hide Navigation - [Main page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page "Visit the main page [z]") - [Contents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents "Guides to browsing Wikipedia") - [Current events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events "Articles related to current events") - [Random article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random "Visit a randomly selected article [x]") - [About Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About "Learn about Wikipedia and how it works") - [Contact us](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us "How to contact Wikipedia") Contribute - [Help](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents "Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia") - [Learn to edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction "Learn how to edit Wikipedia") - [Community portal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal "The hub for editors") - [Recent changes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges "A list of recent changes to Wikipedia [r]") - [Upload file](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard "Add images or other media for use on Wikipedia") - [Special pages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SpecialPages "A list of all special pages [q]") [![](https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/enwiki-25.svg) ![Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en-25.svg) ![The Free Encyclopedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en-25.svg)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) [Search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search "Search Wikipedia [f]") Appearance - [Donate](https://donate.wikimedia.org/?wmf_source=donate&wmf_medium=sidebar&wmf_campaign=en.wikipedia.org&uselang=en) - [Create account](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount&returnto=Section+377 "You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory") - [Log in](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Section+377 "You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [o]") Personal tools - [Donate](https://donate.wikimedia.org/?wmf_source=donate&wmf_medium=sidebar&wmf_campaign=en.wikipedia.org&uselang=en) - [Create account](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount&returnto=Section+377 "You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory") - [Log in](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Section+377 "You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [o]") ## Contents move to sidebar hide - [(Top)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377) - [1 History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#History) Toggle History subsection - [1\.1 Where Section 377 remains in force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Where_Section_377_remains_in_force) - [2 India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#India) Toggle India subsection - [2\.1 Text](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Text) - [2\.2 Public perception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Public_perception) - [2\.2.1 Support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Support) - [2\.2.2 Opposition and criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Opposition_and_criticism) - [2\.3 View of political parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#View_of_political_parties) - [2\.3.1 Opposition to repeal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Opposition_to_repeal) - [2\.3.2 Support of repeal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Support_of_repeal) - [2\.4 Legislative action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Legislative_action) - [2\.5 Judicial action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Judicial_action) - [2\.5.1 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#2009_Naz_Foundation_V._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi) - [2\.5.2 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#2013_Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_v._Naz_Foundation) - [2\.5.3 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#2016_Naz_Foundation_Curative_Petition) - [2\.5.4 Right to Privacy verdict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Right_to_Privacy_verdict) - [2\.5.5 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#2018_Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India) - [2\.6 Documentary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Documentary) - [3 See also](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#See_also) - [4 References](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#References) - [5 Further reading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Further_reading) - [6 External links](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#External_links) Toggle the table of contents # Section 377 9 languages - [বাংলা](https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A7%A9%E0%A7%AD%E0%A7%AD "সেকশন ৩৭৭ – Bangla") - [Čeština](https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cl%C3%A1nek_377 "Článek 377 – Czech") - [עברית](https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A3_377 "סעיף 377 – Hebrew") - [Italiano](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sezione_377 "Sezione 377 – Italian") - [ಕನ್ನಡ](https://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B2%AD%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%B0%E0%B2%A4%E0%B3%80%E0%B2%AF_%E0%B2%A6%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%A1_%E0%B2%B8%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%B9%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%A4%E0%B3%86_%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%B2%E0%B2%82_%E0%B3%A9%E0%B3%AD%E0%B3%AD "ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ ೩೭೭ – Kannada") - [मराठी](https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A5%A9%E0%A5%AD%E0%A5%AD_\(%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A1_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE\) "कलम ३७७ (भारतीय दंड संहिता) – Marathi") - [ਪੰਜਾਬੀ](https://pa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A8%A7%E0%A8%BE%E0%A8%B0%E0%A8%BE_377 "ਧਾਰਾ 377 – Punjabi") - [Simple English](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377 "Section 377 – Simple English") - [తెలుగు](https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%B8%E0%B1%86%E0%B0%95%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%B7%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%8D_377 "సెక్షన్ 377 – Telugu") [Edit links](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityPage/Q7444605#sitelinks-wikipedia "Edit interlanguage links") - [Article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377 "View the content page [c]") - [Talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Section_377 "Discuss improvements to the content page [t]") English - [Read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377) - [Edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit "Edit this page [e]") - [View history](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=history "Past revisions of this page [h]") Tools Tools move to sidebar hide Actions - [Read](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377) - [Edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit "Edit this page [e]") - [View history](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=history) General - [What links here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Section_377 "List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [j]") - [Related changes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Section_377 "Recent changes in pages linked from this page [k]") - [Upload file](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard "Upload files [u]") - [Permanent link](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&oldid=1342787063 "Permanent link to this revision of this page") - [Page information](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=info "More information about this page") - [Cite this page](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Section_377&id=1342787063&wpFormIdentifier=titleform "Information on how to cite this page") - [Get shortened URL](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UrlShortener&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSection_377) Print/export - [Download as PDF](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DownloadAsPdf&page=Section_377&action=show-download-screen "Download this page as a PDF file") - [Printable version](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&printable=yes "Printable version of this page [p]") In other projects - [Wikidata item](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityPage/Q7444605 "Structured data on this page hosted by Wikidata [g]") Appearance move to sidebar hide From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Law criminalizing homosexuality in former British colonies Section 377 is a [British colonial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire "British Empire") [Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_code "Penal code") provision that [criminalized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization "Criminalization") all [sexual acts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity "Human sexual activity") "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in [oral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex "Oral sex") and [anal sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex "Anal sex") along with [homosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") activity. As per a Supreme Court of [India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India "India") judgement since 2018, the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years' imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize [third gender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender "Third gender") people, such as the [apwint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apwint "Apwint") in [Myanmar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar "Myanmar").[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1) In 2018, then [British Prime Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_prime_minister "British prime minister") [Theresa May](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May "Theresa May") acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2) ## History \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: History")\] Although the act of sodomy was sometimes prosecuted in England under British [common law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law "Common law"), it was first [codified](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_\(law\) "Codification (law)") in the [British empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire "British Empire") as Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") as "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" in 1860. Section 377 was then exported to other colonies and even to England itself, providing the legal model for the act of '[buggery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery "Buggery")' in the [Offences Against the Person Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_Against_the_Person_Act_1861 "Offences Against the Person Act 1861") (1861).[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2) Alok Gupta wrote for a [Human Rights Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch "Human Rights Watch") report in 2008 that the British intended for the code to prevent [Christian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians "Christians") colonial subjects from "[corruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption "Corruption")", and to condition colonized subjects undergoing [Christianization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization "Christianization") to conform to colonial authority.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-3) This consequently had a big impact on [colonial-era sexuality in India.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_India#Colonial-era "Sexuality in India") Although Section 377 did not explicitly include the word homosexual, it has been used to prosecute [homosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") activity. The provision was introduced by authorities in the [Raj](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj "British Raj") in 1862 as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code") and functioned as the [legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law "Law") impetus behind the [criminalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization "Criminalization") of what was referred to as, "unnatural offences" throughout the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1-5)[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1) In [Singapore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore "Singapore"), a similar law called [Section 377A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_\(Singapore\) "Section 377A (Singapore)") of the Singapore Penal Code was introduced in 1938 by the colonial government that had also criminalized sex between men. In 2022, then Prime Minister [Lee Hsien Loong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hsien_Loong "Lee Hsien Loong") had announced that the provision would be repealed.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:83-6)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:84-7) It was repealed on 29 November 2022 when the bill passed in Parliament.\[[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed "Wikipedia:Citation needed")\] ### Where Section 377 remains in force \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Where Section 377 remains in force")\] Although most colonies have since gained [independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence "Independence") through [statehood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_\(polity\) "State (polity)") since Section 377 was implemented, it remains in the [penal codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_codes "Penal codes") of the following countries, all of which were formerly a part of the [British Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire "British Empire"): - [![Bangladesh](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg/40px-Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg.png)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh "Bangladesh") Bangladesh[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8) - [![Myanmar](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Flag_of_Myanmar.svg/40px-Flag_of_Myanmar.svg.png)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar "Myanmar") Myanmar[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8) - [![Pakistan](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Flag_of_Pakistan.svg/40px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan "Pakistan") Pakistan[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8) - [![Sri Lanka](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg/40px-Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg.png)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka "Sri Lanka") Sri Lanka (as [Section 365](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code "Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code"))[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-elliott-8) ## India \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: India")\] Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was a section of the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") introduced in 1861 during the [British rule of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rule_of_India "British rule of India"). Modeled on the [Buggery Act 1533](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533 "Buggery Act 1533"), it made sexual activities "against the order of nature" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual [homosexual sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") between adults was unconstitutional, "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary",[\[9\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-9) but that Section 377 remained in force relating to sex with [minors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_\(law\) "Minor (law)"), [non-consensual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_consent "Sexual consent") sexual acts, and [bestiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiality "Bestiality").[\[10\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-10) Section 377 was fully replaced along with the rest of the Indian Penal Code by the [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita")[\[11\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-11) on 1 July 2024. Portions of the section were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to [gay sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_sex "Gay sex") by the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") in July 2009.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-12)[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-13)[\[14\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-14) That judgement was overturned by the [Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") (SC) on 11 December 2013 in [Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_vs._Naz_Foundation "Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation"). The Court held that amending or repealing section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.[\[15\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-15)[\[16\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-16) On 6 February 2016, a three-member bench of the Court reviewed curative petitions submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") and others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench.[\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17) On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution in the landmark [Puttaswamy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_K._S._Puttaswamy_\(Retd.\)_and_Anr._vs_Union_Of_India_And_Ors. "Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.") judgement. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the [fundamental rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights "Fundamental rights") and that the rights of the [LGBT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT "LGBT") population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377.[\[19\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-19)[\[20\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-20)[\[21\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-21) In January 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 Naz Foundation judgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India") that Section 377 was unconstitutional "in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex".[\[22\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-22)[\[23\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-23) The judgment was given by a five-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India [Dipak Misra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_Misra "Dipak Misra"), Justices [R. F. Nariman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman "Rohinton Fali Nariman"), [D. Y. Chandrachud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud "Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud"), [A. M. Khanwilkar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar "Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar") and [Indu Malhotra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indu_Malhotra "Indu Malhotra").\[[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed "Wikipedia:Citation needed")\] ### Text \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Text")\] > 377\. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.[\[24\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-24)[\[25\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-25) ### Public perception \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Public perception")\] Main article: [Homosexuality in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India "Homosexuality in India") [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg/250px-Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg) Participant carrying a poster on Section 377 during [Bhubaneswar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhubaneswar "Bhubaneswar") Pride Parade #### Support \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Support")\] In 2008 Additional [Solicitor General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_India "Solicitor General of India") PP Malhotra said: "[Homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. \[Decriminalising homosexuality\] may create \[a\] breach of peace. If it is allowed then \[the\] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society." This view was shared by the Home Ministry.[\[26\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-26) 11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it "the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other's religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment" The Daily News and Analysis article added that Baba [Ramdev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramdev "Ramdev"), India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not "turn homosexual", stated he could "cure" homosexuality through yoga and called it "a bad addiction".[\[27\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-27) #### Opposition and criticism \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: Opposition and criticism")\] The [Ministry of Health and Family Welfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Health_and_Family_Welfare "Ministry of Health and Family Welfare") opposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti-[HIV/AIDS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS "HIV/AIDS") efforts.[\[28\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-28)[\[29\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-29) According to the [NCRB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Records_Bureau "National Crime Records Bureau"), in 2015, 1,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women.[\[30\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-30) [Human Rights Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch "Human Rights Watch") also argued that the law had been used to harass [HIV/AIDS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS "AIDS") prevention efforts, as well as [sex workers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker "Sex worker"), [homosexuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuals "Homosexuals"), and other groups at risk of the disease,[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-31) even though those found guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that relate to Section 377 may face a life sentence under a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC.[\[32\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-32) The [People's Union for Civil Liberties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Union_for_Civil_Liberties "People's Union for Civil Liberties") has published two reports on the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[\[33\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-33) and, in particular, [transsexuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual "Transsexual") in India.[\[34\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-34) In 2006, Section 377 came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[\[35\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-35) most prominently [Vikram Seth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Seth "Vikram Seth"). The law subsequently drew even more criticism from several ministers, most prominently [Anbumani Ramadoss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbumani_Ramadoss "Anbumani Ramadoss")[\[36\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Mexico_AIDS_conference-36) and [Oscar Fernandes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Fernandes "Oscar Fernandes").[\[37\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-37) In 2008, a judge of the [Bombay High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_High_Court "Bombay High Court") also called for the scrapping of the law.[\[38\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-38) The [United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations "United Nations") also said that the ban violated international law. [United Nations human rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council "United Nations Human Rights Council") chief [Navi Pillay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navi_Pillay "Navi Pillay") stated that "Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified", and that the decision "represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights.", voicing hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure.[\[39\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-39) ### View of political parties \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=8 "Edit section: View of political parties")\] #### Opposition to repeal \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=9 "Edit section: Opposition to repeal")\] [Rajnath Singh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajnath_Singh "Rajnath Singh"), a member of the ruling party [BJP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party "Bharatiya Janata Party") and the Home Minister, is on record shortly after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is "unambiguously" in favour of the law, also claiming that "We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported."[\[40\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-40) [Yogi Adityanath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Adityanath "Yogi Adityanath"), BJP [MP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_parliament,_Lok_Sabha "Member of parliament, Lok Sabha"), welcomed the 2013 verdict and will "oppose any move to decriminalise homosexuality."[\[41\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0a-41) The [Samajwadi Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samajwadi_Party "Samajwadi Party") made it clear that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality "unethical and immoral".[\[42\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-42) [Ram Gopal Yadav](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Gopal_Yadav "Ram Gopal Yadav") stated that they support the Supreme Court decision as "It is completely against the culture of our nation."[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) The Congress party-led [UPA government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Progressive_Alliance "United Progressive Alliance") also supported the law during the initial [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") case, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalized.[\[43\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-43) [Bharatiya Janata Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party "Bharatiya Janata Party") leader [Subramanian Swamy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subramanian_Swamy "Subramanian Swamy") said that homosexuality was not a normal thing and was against [Hindutva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva "Hindutva").[\[44\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-44) He went on to say that it was "a danger to our national security" and that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. He added that "there is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll be a cover for [pedophiles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia "Pedophilia") and a huge rise in HIV cases."[\[45\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-45) After the 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court, the [Indian Union Muslim League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Union_Muslim_League "Indian Union Muslim League") continued to oppose decriminalisation, saying 'homosexuality is against Indian culture'.[\[46\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-46) #### Support of repeal \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=10 "Edit section: Support of repeal")\] Former Finance Minister and BJP member [Arun Jaitley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Jaitley "Arun Jaitley") said that "Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalized consensual sex between gay adults" and "When millions of people the world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed."[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\[48\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-48) BJP spokesperson [Shaina NC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaina_NC "Shaina NC") said her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. "We are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward."[\[49\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-49) In December 2013, [Indian National Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress "Indian National Congress") President [Rahul Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahul_Gandhi "Rahul Gandhi") came out in support of LGBT rights and said that "every individual had the right to choose". He also said "These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, freedom of expression. So let that be. I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement", he said. The LGBT rights movement in India was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections.[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47) [Sonia Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi "Sonia Gandhi") also shared a similar view.[\[50\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-50) Senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister [P. Chidambaram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._Chidambaram "P. Chidambaram") stated that the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation judgement must be quickly reversed.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) He also said that "Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck down or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement by Justice AP Shah."[\[51\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-51) The [RSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh") revised its position, the leader [Dattatreya Hosabale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dattatreya_Hosabale "Dattatreya Hosabale") reportedly saying, "no criminalisation, but no glorification either."[\[52\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-52) RSS chief [Mohan Bhagwat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohan_Bhagwat "Mohan Bhagwat") also came out in support of the LGBTQIA+ community stating that they should be accepted as an integral part of society. After the 2013 verdict, the [Aam Aadmi Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aam_Aadmi_Party "Aam Aadmi Party") put on their website: > The [Aam Aadmi party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aam_Aadmi_Party "Aam Aadmi Party") is disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Section 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") on the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the police. This not only violates the human rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will also step in to repeal this archaic law.[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47) [Brinda Karat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinda_Karat "Brinda Karat") of the [Communist Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_\(Marxist\) "Communist Party of India (Marxist)") said the SC order was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is wrong.[\[53\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-53) [Shivanand Tiwari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivanand_Tiwari "Shivanand Tiwari"), leader of [Janata Dal United](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janata_Dal_\(United\) "Janata Dal (United)"), did not support the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court "Supreme court") decision, calling [homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") practical and constitutional. He added that "This happens in society and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Court trying to stop them?"[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) [Derek O'Brien](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_O%27Brien_\(politician\) "Derek O'Brien (politician)") of the [Trinamool Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Trinamool_Congress "All India Trinamool Congress") said that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal world we live in today.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) ### Legislative action \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=11 "Edit section: Legislative action")\] On 18 December 2015, [Lok Sabha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lok_Sabha "Lok Sabha") member [Shashi Tharoor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashi_Tharoor "Shashi Tharoor") of the [Indian National Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress "Indian National Congress") introduced a [private member's bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill "Private member's bill") to replace Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") and decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24.[\[54\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54) For his part, Tharoor expressed surprise at the bill's rejection at this early stage. He said that he did not have time to rally support and that he will attempt to reintroduce the bill.[\[54\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54) In March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's bill to decriminalize [homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") but was voted down for the second time.[\[55\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-55) ### Judicial action \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=12 "Edit section: Judicial action")\] #### 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=13 "Edit section: 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi")\] [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf/page1-250px-Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf.jpg)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP\(C\)_No.7455_2001.pdf) The judgement of the [High Court of Delhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Delhi "High Court of Delhi") of 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults Main article: [Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_v._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi "Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi") The movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by [AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Bhedbhav_Virodhi_Andolan "AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan") in 1991. Their historic publication Less than Gay: A Citizen's Report, spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. [A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India'](https://web.archive.org/web/20120406222219/http://archive.epw.in/data/PDF/001189_EPW_3_2_1996_Vol_XXXI_No_5/COMMENTARY_Gay%20Rights%20in%20India.pdf) chronicles this early history. As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the [Naz Foundation (India) Trust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust"), an activist group, which filed a [public interest litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation "Public interest litigation") in the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") in 2001, seeking the legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[\[56\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Chronology-56) The [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") worked with a legal team from the [Lawyers Collective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyers_Collective "Lawyers Collective") to engage in court.[\[57\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-57) In 2003, the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners, had no [locus standi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_standi "Locus standi") in the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") in the absence of a petitioner with standing. [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the [High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_court "High court") to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit.[\[58\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-58) Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called 'Voices Against 377', which supported the demand to 'read down' section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.[\[59\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-59) There was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with [Navtej Singh Johar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtej_Singh_Johar "Navtej Singh Johar") and drew from his personal experiences while protesting. [Ritu Dalmia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritu_Dalmia "Ritu Dalmia") also demonstrated keen activism. [Aman Nath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aman_Nath "Aman Nath"), a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Section 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg died.[\[60\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-60) Ayesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent e-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out about her sexuality. Over time, she gained the courage to come out and challenge Section 377.[\[61\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-61) In May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court"), but the Government was undecided on its position, with The [Ministry of Home Affairs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_home_affairs "Ministry of home affairs") maintaining a contradictory position to that of the Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to [homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality").[\[62\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-62) On 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move.[\[63\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-63) On 12 June 2009, India's new law minister [Veerappa Moily](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerappa_Moily "Veerappa Moily") agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.[\[64\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-64) Eventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section,[\[65\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65) legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults.[\[66\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-BBC1-66) The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice [Ajit Prakash Shah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Prakash_Shah "Ajit Prakash Shah") and Justice [S. Muralidhar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Muralidhar "S. Muralidhar") said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law. The two-judge bench went on to hold that: > If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as 'deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised. > > Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination. > > This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.[\[67\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Judgement-67) The court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.[\[65\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65) A batch of appeals were filed with the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India"), challenging the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") judgment. On 27 March 2012, the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court "Supreme court") reserved verdict on these.[\[68\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68) After initially opposing the judgement, the [Attorney General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_India "Attorney General of India") [G. E. Vahanvati](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Vahanvati "G. E. Vahanvati") decided not to file any appeal against the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court")'s verdict, stating, "insofar as \[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private \[before it was struck down by the High Court\] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers."[\[68\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68) #### 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=14 "Edit section: 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation")\] Main article: [Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_vs._Naz_Foundation "Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation") Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-judge [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") bench consisting of [G. S. Singhvi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._S._Singhvi "G. S. Singhvi") and [S. J. Mukhopadhaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._J._Mukhopadhaya "S. J. Mukhopadhaya") overturned the Delhi High Court case [Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_v._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi "Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi") and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This ruling was despite the urging of a group of mental health professionals who filed a collection of written submissions to the Supreme court with commentary on the case grounded in their expert opinion[\[69\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-69) The mental health professionals noted that they frequently see LGBT or queer clients who suffer significant psychological distress—depression, anxiety, and more—due to the threat and social censure posed by IPC 377. These mental health professionals argued that IPC 377 causes LGBT and queer individuals to feel that they are "criminals", and that this status is a significant part of their psychological distress. The United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay[\[70\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-70) voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it "a significant step backwards" for the country. In the wake of [Indian Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India")'s ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief [Ban Ki-moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Ki-moon "Ban Ki-moon") stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals.[\[71\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-71) Soon after the judgement, [Sonia Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi "Sonia Gandhi"), President of the then ruling [Congress party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_party "Congress party"), asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-president, [Rahul Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahul_Gandhi "Rahul Gandhi") also wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights.[\[72\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-72) In July 2014, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju in the [BJP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party "Bharatiya Janata Party") led [Central government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_government "Central government") told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a decision regarding Section 377 of IPC can be taken only after pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court.[\[73\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-73) However, on 13 January 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, appearing on NDTV, stated, "We \[BJP\] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward."[\[74\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-74) #### 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=15 "Edit section: 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition")\] On 2 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") and others came for hearing in the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court "Supreme court"). The three-member bench headed by the [Chief Justice of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_India "Chief Justice of India") [T. S. Thakur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Thakur "T. S. Thakur") said that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench.[\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17) #### Right to Privacy verdict \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=16 "Edit section: Right to Privacy verdict")\] On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the [Right to Privacy verdict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Privacy_verdict "Right to Privacy verdict"). In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a "discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy." In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, [Justice Chandrachud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud "Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud") (who authored for Justices [Khehar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdish_Singh_Khehar "Jagdish Singh Khehar"), [Agarwal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajesh_Kumar_Agrawal "Rajesh Kumar Agrawal"), [Abdul Nazeer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Abdul_Nazeer "S. Abdul Nazeer") and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. [Justice Kaul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Kishan_Kaul "Sanjay Kishan Kaul") agreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the [Constitution of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India "Constitution of India").[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) > Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) > > ...Their rights are not "so-called" but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine. They inhere in the right to life. They dwell in privacy and dignity. They constitute the essence of liberty and freedom. Sexual orientation is an essential component of identity. Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) However, as the curative petition (challenging Section 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts have suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the ground-work for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the [High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_court "High court"), thereby decriminalizing [homosexual sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_sexual_practices "Homosexual sexual practices").[\[75\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-75)[\[76\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-76) #### 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=17 "Edit section: 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India")\] Main article: [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India") In 2018, after decades of [grassroots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots "Grassroots") activism, the application of [section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code") to private consensual sex between men was ruled unconstitutional by India's [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India"), effectively [decriminalizing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalizing "Decriminalizing") homosexual activity.[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\[77\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-77) The five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of chief justice [Dipak Misra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_Misra "Dipak Misra") and justices [Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud "Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud"), [Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar "Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar"), [Indu Malhotra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indu_Malhotra "Indu Malhotra"), and [Rohinton Fali Nariman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman "Rohinton Fali Nariman") started hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The [Union Government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India "Government of India") did not take a position on the issue and left it to the "wisdom of the court" to decide on Section 377. The petitioners invoked the right to [sexual privacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_reproductive_health_and_rights "Sexual and reproductive health and rights"), [dignity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity "Dignity"), right against discrimination and freedom of expression to argue against the constitutionality of Section 377. After hearing the petitioners' plea for four days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018.[\[78\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-78) Announcing the verdict, the court reversed its own 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the [IPC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act.[\[79\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-79)[\[80\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-80) In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law "irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible."[\[81\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-81)[\[82\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-82) [The Wire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire_\(India\) "The Wire (India)") drew parallels between the supreme court's judgement and [Privy Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_Office_\(Canada\) "Privy Council Office (Canada)")'s 1929 verdict in [Edwards vs Canada (AG)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v_Canada_\(AG\) "Edwards v Canada (AG)") that allowed for Women to sit in the [Senate of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada "Senate of Canada"). It compared the petitioners to the Canadian [Famous Five](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Famous_Five_\(Canada\) "The Famous Five (Canada)").[\[83\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-auto-83) ### Documentary \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=18 "Edit section: Documentary")\] In 2011, Italian film maker Adele Tulli, made 365 Without 377 which followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in [Bombay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay "Bombay") celebrations.[\[84\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-84) It won the [Turin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin "Turin") LGBT Film Fest award in 2011.[\[85\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-85) ## See also \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=19 "Edit section: See also")\] - [LGBT rights in Bangladesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Bangladesh "LGBT rights in Bangladesh") - [LGBT rights in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_India "LGBT rights in India") - [LGBT rights in Myanmar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Myanmar "LGBT rights in Myanmar") - [LGBT rights in Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Pakistan "LGBT rights in Pakistan") - [LGBT rights in Sri Lanka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Sri_Lanka "LGBT rights in Sri Lanka") - [Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code "Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code") - [Sodomy law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law "Sodomy law") - [LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations "LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations") ## References \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=20 "Edit section: References")\] 1. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-1) Chua, Lynette J.; Gilbert, David (2016). "State violence, human-rights violations and the case of apwint of Myanmar". Gender, Violence and the State in Asia. Taylor & Francis. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781317325949](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781317325949 "Special:BookSources/9781317325949") . 2. ^ [a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-1) Rao, Rahul (2020). Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–9\. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9780190865535](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780190865535 "Special:BookSources/9780190865535") . 3. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-3)* Gupta, Alok (2008). This Alien Legacy: The Origins of "Anti-Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism. Human Rights Watch. p. 16. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781564324191](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781564324191 "Special:BookSources/9781564324191") . 4. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-3) [e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-4) Stoddard, Eve; Collins, John (2016). Social and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 135. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781317509776](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781317509776 "Special:BookSources/9781317509776") . 5. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1_5-0)* McCann, Hannah; Monaghan, Whitney (2020). Queer Theory Now. Red Globe Press. p. 163. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781352007510](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781352007510 "Special:BookSources/9781352007510") . 6. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:83_6-0) ["NDR 2022: Govt to repeal Section 377A, amend Constitution to protect marriage definition from legal challenges"](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ndr-2022-section-377a-repeal-constitution-1974206). TODAY. Retrieved 21 August 2022. 7. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:84_7-0) Auto, Hermes (21 August 2022). ["NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Section 377A, decriminalise sex between men \\| The Straits Times"](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-govt-will-repeal-section-377a-decriminalise-sex-between-men). www.straitstimes.com. Retrieved 21 August 2022. 8. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-3) Elliott, Josh (6 September 2018). ["India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't"](https://globalnews.ca/news/4430721/india-gay-sex-supreme-court-pakistan-bangladesh/). Global News. Retrieved 19 January 2022. 9. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-9)* Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018). ["SC decriminalises homosexuality"](https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality/article24887363.ece). The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com. 10. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-10) Pundir, Pallavi (6 September 2018). ["I Am What I Am. Take Me as I Am"](https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-am-what-i-am-take-me-as-i-am/). [Vice News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_News "Vice News"). Retrieved 8 September 2018. 11. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-11) ["BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023"](https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf) (PDF). 12. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-12) ["Delhi high court decriminalizes homosexuality"](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/sl3bjL7PX8MzUeOhPGejyI/Delhi-high-court-decriminalizes-homosexuality.html). www.livemint.com. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 13. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-13) ["Indian court decriminalises homosexuality in Delhi"](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/homosexuality-decriminalised-delhi-india). the Guardian. Associated Press. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 14. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-14) Nidal Al-Mughrabi. ["Delhi High Court overturns ban on gay sex"](https://web.archive.org/web/20180710195502/https://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40752720090702). IN. Archived from [the original](https://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40752720090702) on 10 July 2018. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 15. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-15) Monalisa (11 December 2013). ["Policy"](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/FHDQ9yB2jRJMsOlNCQrkgL/Supreme-Court-to-rule-on-legality-of-gay-sex-today.html). Livemint. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 16. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-16) Venkatesan, J. (11 December 2013). ["Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC verdict decriminalising gay sex"](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-hc-verdict-decriminalising-gay-sex/article5446939.ece). The Hindu. [ISSN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSN_\(identifier\) "ISSN (identifier)") [0971-751X](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018. 17. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-1) ["Supreme Court agrees to hear petition on Section 376, refers matter to five-judge bench"](http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-petition-on-section-377-refers-matter-to-five-judge-bench/). 2 February 2016. Retrieved 2 February 2016. 18. ^ [a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-3) ["Right to Privacy Judgement"](https://web.archive.org/web/20170828075957/http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP\(C\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 24 August 2017. pp. 121, 123–24\. Archived from [the original](http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP\(C\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF) on 28 August 2017. 19. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-19)* Balakrishnan, Pulapre (25 August 2017). ["Endgame for Section 377?"](https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/endgame-for-section-377/article19555379.ece). The Hindu. [ISSN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSN_\(identifier\) "ISSN (identifier)") [0971-751X](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018. 20. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-20) ["Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place"](https://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-rights-old-judicial-wrongs-in-landmark-right-to-privacy-verdict-shows-state-its-rightful-place-3984011.html). www.firstpost.com. 29 August 2017. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 21. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-21) ["Right to Privacy Judgment Makes Section 377 Very Hard to Defend, Says Judge Who Read It Down"](https://thewire.in/gender/ap-shah-377-right-to-privacy). The Wire. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 22. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-22) [Judgment](https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf), par. 156. 23. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-23) ["Supreme Court Scraps Section 377; 'Majoritarian Views Cannot Dictate Rights,' Says CJI"](https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-scraps-section-377-majoritarian-views-cannot-dictate-rights-says-cji). The Wire. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 24. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-24) ["Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code"](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836974/). Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 30 October 2017. 25. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-25) ["The Indian Penal Code, 1860"](https://web.archive.org/web/20070114135350/http://chddistrictcourts.gov.in/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF). Chandigarh District Court. Archived from [the original](http://chddistrictcourts.gov.in/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF) on 14 January 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2017. 26. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-26) ["HC pulls up government for homosexuality doublespeak"](https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/hc-pulls-up-government-for-homosexuality-doublespeak-30548-2008-09-26). India Today. 26 September 2008. 27. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-27) ["Rare unity: Religious leaders come out in support of Section 377"](http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-rare-unity-religious-leaders-come-out-in-support-of-section-377-1933612). DNAIndia.com. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 28. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-28) ["Section 377 and the law: What courts have said about homosexuality over time"](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/section-377-and-the-law-what-courts-have-said-about-homosexuality-over-time/story-66xXSTFILnBYo5hE7yNaKL.html). hindustantimes.com/. 5 February 2018. Retrieved 24 September 2018. 29. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-29) ["Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC"](https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc/613434). outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 24 September 2018. 30. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-30) Thomas, Shibu (29 September 2016). ["14% of those arrested under section 377 last year were minors"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/14-of-those-arrested-under-section-377-last-year-were-minors/articleshow/54573741.cms). The Times Of India. Retrieved 4 November 2017. 31. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-31) [India: Repeal Colonial-Era Sodomy Law](https://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/11/india12398.htm), report from [Human Rights Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch "Human Rights Watch"), 11 January 2006. 32. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-32) ["Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code"](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/970675/). IndianKanoon.org. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 33. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-33) ["Archived copy"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090725200649/http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REport%201). Archived from [the original](http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REport%201) on 25 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title "Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title")) 34. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-34) ["Archived copy"](https://web.archive.org/web/20070202173932/http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REPORT%202003). Archived from [the original](http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REPORT%202003) on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 5 February 2007. `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title "Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title")) 35. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-35) Ramesh, Randeep (18 September 2006). ["India's literary elite call for anti-gay law to be scrapped"](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/18/gayrights.books). The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 September 2007. 36. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Mexico_AIDS_conference_36-0) Kounteya Sinha (9 August 2008). ["Legalise homosexuality: Ramadoss"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Legalise-homosexuality-Ramadoss/articleshow/3342815.cms). [The Times of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India "The Times of India"). [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20121025201512/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-08-09/india/27931000_1_hiv-epidemic-national-aids-control-organization-msms) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 37. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-37) Vikram Doctor (2 July 2008). ["Reverse swing: It may be an open affair for gays, lesbians"](http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Reverse_swing_It_may_be_an_open_affair_for_gays_lesbians/articleshow/3186187.cms). [The Economic Times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Times "The Economic Times"). Retrieved 2 July 2009. 38. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-38) Shibu Thomas (25 July 2008). ["Unnatural-sex law needs relook: Bombay HC"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Unnatural-sex_law_needs_relook_Mumbai_HC/rssarticleshow/3276516.cms). The Times of India. Retrieved 12 February 2009. 39. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-39) ["Ban on gay sex violates international law"](https://web.archive.org/web/20180908015737/https://in.reuters.com/article/india-rights-gay-un/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212). Reuters. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http://in.reuters.com/article/india-rights-gay-un/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212) on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2017. 40. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-40) Rameshan, Radhika (13 December 2011). ["BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexuality"](https://web.archive.org/web/20131216103934/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131214/jsp/nation/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw). The Telegraph. Archived from [the original](https://www.telegraphindia.com/1131214/jsp/nation/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw) on 16 December 2013. 41. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0a_41-0) Jyoti, Dhrubo (12 December 2013). ["Political Leaders React To Supreme Court Judgement On Sec 377"](https://web.archive.org/web/20140511041143/http://www.gaylaxymag.com/latest-news/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377/#gs.jTP9N1c). Gaylaxy. Archived from [the original](http://www.gaylaxymag.com/latest-news/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377/#gs.jTP9N1c) on 11 May 2014. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 42. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-42) ["Homosexuality Is Unethical And Immoral: Samajwadi Party"](http://www.news18.com/videos/politics/samajwadi-party-on-section-377-655768.html). News 18. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 43. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-43) ["Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC"](https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc/613434). www.outlookindia.com. Retrieved 11 September 2018. 44. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-44) ["Being gay is against Hindutva, it needs a cure: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/being-gay-is-against-hindutva-it-needs-a-cure-bjp-mp-subramanian-swamy/articleshow/64927333.cms). The Times of India. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2020. 45. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-45) ["Section 377: Homosexuality against Hindutva, cannot celebrate it, says BJP leader Subramanian Swamy \\| India News"](https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/section-377-homosexuality-hindutva-gay-sex-lgbt-subramanian-swamy-supreme-court-of-india-section-377-curative-petition-article-377-sec-377-ipc-carnal/252246). www.timesnownews.com. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 11 April 2019. 46. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-46) ["Indian Union Muslim League opposes Supreme Court verdict, says it is against Indian culture"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/trichy/indian-union-muslim-league-opposes-sc-verdict-says-it-is-against-indian-culture/articleshow/65712288.cms). Times of India. 47. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-3) Hans, Namit (14 February 2017). ["Increasing support for gay rights from BJP leaders. A rainbow in sight?"](http://www.catchnews.com/national-news/most-indian-political-parties-back-lgbt-rights-a-rainbow-in-sight-1449397534.html). Catch News. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 48. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-48)* Roy, Sandip (3 February 2016). ["The BJP And Its 377 Problem"](http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/02/03/section-377_0_n_9146832.html). HuffPost. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 49. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-49) ["BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC"](http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). 14 January 2015. 50. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-50) ["Statements of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on Section 377 exposes character of Congress leaders: Baba Ramdev"](http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-statements-of-sonia-rahul-gandhi-and-kapil-sibal-on-section-377-exposes-character-of-congress-leaders-baba-ramdev-1934573). DNAIndia.com. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 51. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-51) ["Court should take relook at Section 377 after today's verdict: Chidambaram"](http://www.uniindia.com/court-should-take-relook-at-section-377-after-today-s-verdict-chidambaram/india/news/969519.html). United News of India. 24 August 2017. Retrieved 4 November 2017. 52. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-52) Tiwari, Ravish (19 March 2016). ["Section 377: Unlike RSS, BJP shies away from taking a stand on homosexuality"](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/section-377-unlike-rss-bjp-shies-away-from-taking-a-stand-on-homosexuality/articleshow/51464248.cms). The Economic Times. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 53. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-53) ["Section 377: Where does each party stand?"](http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/section-377-where-does-each-party-stand-36408). The News Minute. 29 November 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 54. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-1) ["Shashi Tharoor's bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha"](http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/shashi-tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-homosexuality-defeated-in-ls/). IndianExpress.com. 18 December 2015. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 55. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-55)* ["BJP thwarting Bill on gays: Tharoor"](http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-gay-sex-defeated-again/article8342075.ece). The Hindu. 11 March 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016. 56. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Chronology_56-0) ["Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090705183512/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights/96152-3.html). CNN-IBN. Archived from [the original](http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights/96152-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 57. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-57) Kian Ganz (2 July 2009). ["Lawyers Collective overturns anti-gay law"](http://www.legallyindia.com/2009070276/News/lawyers-collective-overturns-anti-gay-law). legallyindia.com. Retrieved 9 April 2011. 58. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-58) Sheela Bhatt (3 February 2006). ["Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC"](http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/03gay.htm?q=tp&file=.htm). Rediff News. Retrieved 7 July 2009. 59. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-59) Shibu Thomas (20 May 2008). ["Delhi HC to take up PIL on LGBT rights"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delhi-HC-to-take-up-PIL-on-gay-rights/articleshow/3054907.cms). [The Times of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India "The Times of India"). [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20121025121052/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-05-20/india/27743991_1_decriminalise-homosexuality-gay-couple-pil-on-gay-rights) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009. 60. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-60) ["Section 377: The famous and fearless 5 who convinced SC - Times of India ►"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/section-377-the-famous-and-fearless-5-who-convinced-sc/articleshow/62421886.cms). The Times of India. Retrieved 26 September 2018. 61. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-61) Schultz, Kai (2 June 2018). ["Gay in India, Where Progress Has Come Only With Risk"](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/world/asia/gay-in-india-where-progress-has-come-only-with-risk.html). The New York Times. Retrieved 26 September 2018. 62. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-62) ["Centre divided on punishment of homosexuality"](http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1165375). DNA. 63. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-63) ["Delhi high court all set to rule on same-sex activity petition - Livemint"](http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/07220242/Delhi-high-court-all-set-to-ru.html). www.Livemint.com. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 64. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-64) ["Moily signals rethink on anti-gay law"](https://web.archive.org/web/20121025201523/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-06-12/india/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi). [The Times of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India "The Times of India"). 12 June 2009. Archived from [the original](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-06-12/india/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi) on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009. 65. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-1) ["Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090705172824/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex/96148-3.html). [CNN-IBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN-IBN "CNN-IBN"). Archived from [the original](http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex/96148-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 66. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-BBC1_66-0)* ["Gay sex decriminalised in India"](https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8129836.stm). [BBC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC "BBC"). 2 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 67. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Judgement_67-0) ["Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090826035913/http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgement/02-07-2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF). Delhi High Court. Archived from [the original](http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgement/02-07-2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF) on 26 August 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 68. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-1) ["Verdict reserved on appeals in gay sex case"](http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3250607.ece). The Hindu. New Delhi, India. 27 March 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012. 69. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-69)* Shesadri, Shekha; et al. ["Mental Health Professionals--Written Submissions"](http://orinam.net/377/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/SC_MentalHealthProfessionals_WrittenSubmissions.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2021. 70. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-70) ["United Nations Criticizes SC Verdict on Sec 377"](https://web.archive.org/web/20140221155213/http://www.enewspaperofindia.com/News/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx). enewspaper of India. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http://www.enewspaperofindia.com/News/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx) on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 71. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-71) ["UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for equality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals"](https://web.archive.org/web/20131216050212/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-12/news/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights). The Economic Times. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-12/news/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights) on 16 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 72. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-72) ["Rahul Gandhi too wants Section 377 to go, supports gay rights"](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/rahul-gandhi-wants-section-377-to-go-supports-gay-rights-220587-2013-12-12). India Today Online New Delhi. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 73. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-73) Press Trust of India (22 July 2014). ["No plans to amend Section 377 till SC decision: Modi govt"](http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-plans-to-amend-section-377-till-sc-decision-govt/). The Indian Express. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 74. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-74) Ratnam, Dhamini (14 January 2015). ["BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC"](http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). Mint. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 75. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-75) ["Legal experts on 377 and Right to Privacy"](http://www.livelaw.in/privacy-bench-affirms-lgbt-rights-disagrees-with-suresh-koushal-judgment-on-377-ipc/). 24 August 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017. 76. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-76) ["The Hindu on 377 and Right to Privacy"](http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/target-section-377/article19563070.ece). [The Hindu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu "The Hindu"). 25 August 2017. 77. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-77) ["India Just Decriminalized Gay Sex"](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/india-section-377-gay-sex). BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 78. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-78) ["Section 377 Verdict By Supreme Court Tomorrow: 10-Point Guide"](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/section-377-supreme-court-verdict-tomorrow-1911822). NDTV.com. Retrieved 5 September 2018. 79. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-79) ["One India, Equal In Love: Supreme Court Ends Section 377"](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/homosexuality-no-longer-a-crime-in-india-supreme-court-ends-controversial-section-377-1912202?browserpush=true). NDTV.com. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 80. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-80) ["India decriminalises gay sex in landmark verdict"](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/india-decriminalises-gay-sex-landmark-verdict-180906051219637.html). www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 81. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-81) ["'Gay sex is not a crime,' says Supreme Court in historic judgment"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/gay-sex-is-not-a-crime-says-supreme-court-in-historic-judgement/articleshow/65695172.cms). The Times of India. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 82. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-82) ["NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. \[2018\] INSC 746 (6 September 2018)"](http://www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/2018/746.html). Legal Information Institute of India. Retrieved 1 April 2020. 83. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-auto_83-0) ["From Canada to India, 'Valiant Five' Have Secured a Marginalised Group's Rights"](https://thewire.in/rights/section-377-persons-case-canada-lgbt). The Wire. Retrieved 12 September 2018. 84. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-84) ["365 without 377 - Adele Tulli"](https://web.archive.org/web/20190514232556/http://www.queerdocumentaries.com/en/documentaries/documentary/365-without-377). www.queerdocumentaries.com. Archived from [the original](http://www.queerdocumentaries.com/en/documentaries/documentary/365-without-377) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019. 85. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-85) Paternò, Cristiana (11 February 2019). ["Adele Tulli: "Italy is a lab for gender""](https://web.archive.org/web/20190514232553/https://news.cinecitta.com/EN/en/news/104/77714/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx). news.cinecitta.com. Archived from [the original](https://news.cinecitta.com/EN/en/news/104/77714/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019. ## Further reading \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=21 "Edit section: Further reading")\] - McGoldrick, Dominic (2019). "Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India". Human Rights Law Review. 19 (1): 173–185\. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_\(identifier\) "Doi (identifier)"):[10\.1093/hrlr/ngy041](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fhrlr%2Fngy041). - Sanders, Douglas E. (2009). ["377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia"](https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). Asian Journal of Comparative Law. 4: 1–49\. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_\(identifier\) "Doi (identifier)"):[10\.1017/S2194607800000417](https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). [S2CID](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2CID_\(identifier\) "S2CID (identifier)") [154403178](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154403178). ## External links \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=22 "Edit section: External links")\] - [Male-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in South Asia: an analysis of the politico-legal framework](http://www.risksandresponsibilities.org/ArvindNarrain.pdf), Arvind Narrain & Brototi Dutta, 2006. - [Official website of the Naz Foundation of (India) Trust](https://archive.today/20120630065247/http://www.nazindia.org/advocacy.htm) (archived) - [Section 377 – Indian Penal Code, 1860](http://devgan.in/ipc/section/377/) (Mobile) \| [v](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Criminalization_of_homosexuality "Template:Criminalization of homosexuality") [t](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Criminalization_of_homosexuality "Template talk:Criminalization of homosexuality") [e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Template:Criminalization_of_homosexuality "Special:EditPage/Template:Criminalization of homosexuality")[Criminalization of homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization_of_homosexuality "Criminalization of homosexuality") \| \| \|---\|---\| \| [Death penalty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality "Capital punishment for homosexuality") \| [Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Afghanistan "LGBT rights in Afghanistan") [Brunei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Brunei "LGBT rights in Brunei") [Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran "LGBT rights in Iran") [Mauritania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Mauritania "LGBT rights in Mauritania") [Saudi Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia "LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia") [Uganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda "LGBT rights in Uganda") ([Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2023 "Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023")) [Yemen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Yemen "LGBT rights in Yemen") \| \| Active \| British colonies ([Section 377](), 1860–) [Malaysia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Malaysia "LGBT rights in Malaysia") (1860–, with caning) [Uganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda "LGBT rights in Uganda") (1894–) \| \| Invalidated \| [Ecuador](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_homosexuality_in_Ecuador "Decriminalization of homosexuality in Ecuador") (1871-[1997](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_No._111-97-TC "Case No. 111-97-TC")) India ([Section 377](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code"), 1861–2018) Sri Lanka ([Article 365](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code "Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code"), 1883–) [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States "Sodomy laws in the United States") \| \| Repealed \| [Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_same-sex_sexual_activity_in_Australia "Legality of same-sex sexual activity in Australia") (1975/1997) [Brazil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_homosexuality_in_Brazil "Legal status of homosexuality in Brazil") (1533–1830) Canada (?–[1969](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act,_1968%E2%80%9369 "Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69")) Cyprus ([Section 171](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_171_of_the_Criminal_Code_of_Cyprus "Section 171 of the Criminal Code of Cyprus"), 1929–1998) Germany ([Paragraph 175](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175 "Paragraph 175"), 1871–1969/1994) New Zealand (1840–[1986](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Law_Reform_Act_1986 "Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986")) Singapore ([Section 377A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_\(Singapore\) "Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)"), 1938–2007/2022) Norway ([Section 213](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_213_of_the_Norwegian_Penal_Code "Section 213 of the Norwegian Penal Code"), ?–1972) Romania ([Article 200](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_200 "Article 200"), 1968–1996/2001) [Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia "LGBT history in Russia") (1832–1917, 1933–1993) South Africa ([Section 20A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_20A "Section 20A"), 1969–2007) United Kingdom ([1533](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533 "Buggery Act 1533")–[1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967 "Sexual Offences Act 1967")/[1982](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Offences_\(Northern_Ireland\)_Order_1982 "Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982")) \| \| Related articles \| [Decriminalization of homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_homosexuality "Decriminalization of homosexuality") [Sodomy law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law "Sodomy law") [LGBT rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights "LGBT rights") [Sharia law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#LGBT_rights "Sharia") \| \| [v](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indian_Penal_Code_navbox "Template:Indian Penal Code navbox") [t](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Indian_Penal_Code_navbox "Template talk:Indian Penal Code navbox") [e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Template:Indian_Penal_Code_navbox "Special:EditPage/Template:Indian Penal Code navbox")[Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") \| \| \|---\|---\| \| Chapters \| [Chapter I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_I_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Chapter I of the Indian Penal Code") [Chapter II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_II_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Chapter II of the Indian Penal Code") [Chapter III](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_III_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter III of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter IV](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_IV_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter V](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_V_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter VA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VA_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Chapter VA of the Indian Penal Code") [Chapter VI](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_VI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter VII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_VII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter VII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter VIII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_VIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter IX](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_IX_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter IXA](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_IXA_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter X](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_X_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XI](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XIII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XIV](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XIV_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XV](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XV_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XV of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XVI](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XVI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XVII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XVII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XVIII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XVIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XIX](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XIX_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XIX of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_XX_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code") [Chapter XXA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_XXA_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Chapter XXA of the Indian Penal Code") [Chapter XXI](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XXI_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XXII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XXII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [Chapter XXIII](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chapter_XXIII_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Chapter XXIII of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") \| \| [Capital offence sections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India "Capital punishment in India") \| [120B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_120B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code") ([criminal conspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_\(criminal\) "Conspiracy (criminal)")) [121](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_121_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") ([waging war against India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India "Terrorism in India")) [122](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_122_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 122 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") ([mutiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny "Mutiny")) [194](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_194_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") (false evidence to procure conviction for a [capital offence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment "Capital punishment")) [302, 303](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_302_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code") ([murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_\(Indian_law\) "Murder (Indian law)")) [305](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_305_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") (abetting [suicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_India "Suicide in India")) [364A](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_364A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") ([kidnapping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping "Kidnapping") for ransom) [364A](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_364B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 364B of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") ([dacoity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacoity "Dacoity") with murder) [376A](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_376B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 376B of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") ([rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_India "Rape in India") with murder or resulting in [persistent vegetative state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state "Persistent vegetative state") of the victim) \| \| Other sections \| [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 1 of the Indian Penal Code") [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_2_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [3](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_3_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 3 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [4](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_4_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [5](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_5_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 5 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") [20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_20_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 20 of the Indian Penal Code") ([court of law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_law "Court of law")) [124A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_124A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code") ([sedition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition "Sedition")) [144](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_144_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") ([unlawful assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_assembly "Unlawful assembly")) [153A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India#Section_153\(A\) "Hate speech laws in India") ([hate speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech "Hate speech")) [228A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_228A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code") (privacy of rape victim) [294](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_294_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code") ([obscenity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity "Obscenity")) [295A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_295A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code") ([blasphemy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy "Blasphemy")) [299](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_299_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") ([culpable homicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_homicide "Culpable homicide")) [304](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_304_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code&action=edit&redlink=1 "Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (page does not exist)") (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) [320](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_320_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code") ([grievous hurt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_hurt "Grievous hurt")) [326A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_326A_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code") ([acid attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_attack "Acid attack")) [326B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_326B_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code") (attempted acid attack) [377](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code) ([unnatural sex offences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_nature "Crime against nature")) [420](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_420_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code") ([fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud "Fraud")) \| \| Defunct \| [309](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_309_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code") ([attempted suicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt "Suicide attempt")) [497](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_law_in_India "Adultery law in India") ([adultery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery "Adultery")) \| \| [v](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LGBTQ_in_India "Template:LGBTQ in India") [t](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:LGBTQ_in_India "Template talk:LGBTQ in India") [e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/Template:LGBTQ_in_India "Special:EditPage/Template:LGBTQ in India")[LGBTQ rights in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_India "LGBTQ rights in India") \| \| \|---\|---\| \| [States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_union_territories_of_India "States and union territories of India") \| \| \| \| \| \| Rights \| [Goa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Goa "LGBTQ rights in Goa") [Karnataka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Karnataka "LGBTQ rights in Karnataka") [Kerala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Kerala "LGBTQ rights in Kerala") [Tamil Nadu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Tamil_Nadu "LGBTQ rights in Tamil Nadu") \| \| Relationship recognition \| [Andhra Pradesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Andhra_Pradesh "Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh") [Goa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Goa "Recognition of same-sex unions in Goa") [Gujarat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Gujarat "Recognition of same-sex unions in Gujarat") [Karnataka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Karnataka "Recognition of same-sex unions in Karnataka") [Kerala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Kerala "Recognition of same-sex unions in Kerala") [Maharashtra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Maharashtra "Recognition of same-sex unions in Maharashtra") [Odisha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Odisha "Recognition of same-sex unions in Odisha") [Tamil Nadu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Tamil_Nadu "Recognition of same-sex unions in Tamil Nadu") [Uttar Pradesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Uttar_Pradesh "Recognition of same-sex unions in Uttar Pradesh") [Uttarakhand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Uttarakhand "Recognition of same-sex unions in Uttarakhand") \| \| [Judgments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India "Judiciary of India") \| [LGBTQ Rights Case Law in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_LGBTQ_rights_case_law "Category:Indian LGBTQ rights case law") \| \| [Statutes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_India "Law of India") \| \| \| \| \| \| Legal status \| \| \| \| \| \| [Gender Identity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_transgender_people "Legal status of transgender people") \| [Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_Persons_\(Protection_of_Rights\)_Act,_2019 "Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019") [Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Transgender_Persons_Bill,_2014 "Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014") \| \| [Sexual Orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization_of_homosexuality "Criminalization of homosexuality") \| [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#India) \| \| [Healthcare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_and_the_LGBTQ_community "Healthcare and the LGBTQ community") \| [HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Immunodeficiency_Virus_and_Acquired_Immune_Deficiency_Syndrome_\(Prevention_and_Control\)_Act,_2017 "Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017") [Mental Healthcare Act, 2017](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Healthcare_Act,_2017 "Mental Healthcare Act, 2017") \| \| [Parenthood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting "LGBT parenting") \| [Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Adoption_Resource_Authority "Central Adoption Resource Authority") [Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology#India "Assisted reproductive technology") [Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy_in_India "Surrogacy in India") [Adoption Regulations of 2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Adoption_Resource_Authority "Central Adoption Resource Authority") \| \| Organisations \| \| \| \| \| \| Government bodies \| [National Council for Transgender Persons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_for_Transgender_Persons "National Council for Transgender Persons") \| \| [Culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_culture_in_India "LGBT culture in India") \| \| \| \| \| \| [History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_India "LGBT history in India") \| [Hijra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_\(South_Asia\) "Hijra (South Asia)") [Homosexuality in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India "Homosexuality in India") \| \| Awards \| [Rainbow Awards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Awards "Rainbow Awards") [2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Rainbow_Awards "1st Rainbow Awards") [2024](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Rainbow_Awards "2nd Rainbow Awards") \| \| Media \| [68 Pages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68_Pages "68 Pages") [Aligarh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aligarh_\(film\) "Aligarh (film)") [Angry Indian Goddesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Indian_Goddesses "Angry Indian Goddesses") [Antharam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antharam "Antharam") [Aruvi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruvi "Aruvi") [Arekti Premer Golpo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arekti_Premer_Golpo "Arekti Premer Golpo") [Bombay Talkies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Talkies_\(film\) "Bombay Talkies (film)") [Chitrangada: The Crowning Wish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitrangada:_The_Crowning_Wish "Chitrangada: The Crowning Wish") [Dostana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dostana_\(2008_film\) "Dostana (2008 film)") [Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ek_Ladki_Ko_Dekha_Toh_Aisa_Laga "Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga") [Evening Shadows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evening_Shadows "Evening Shadows") [Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_\(1996_film\) "Fire (1996 film)") [Goa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_\(2010_film\) "Goa (2010 film)") [I Am](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_\(2010_Indian_film\) "I Am (2010 Indian film)") [Kapoor & Sons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapoor_%26_Sons "Kapoor & Sons") [Loev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loev "Loev") [Made in Heaven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Heaven_\(TV_series\) "Made in Heaven (TV series)") [Mango Soufflé](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mango_Souffl%C3%A9 "Mango Soufflé") [Margarita with a Straw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarita_with_a_Straw "Margarita with a Straw") [Memories in March](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memories_in_March "Memories in March") [Nagarkirtan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarkirtan "Nagarkirtan") [Njan Marykutty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Njan_Marykutty "Njan Marykutty") [Qissa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa_\(film\) "Qissa (film)") [Randu Penkuttikal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randu_Penkuttikal "Randu Penkuttikal") [Romil & Jugal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romil_%26_Jugal "Romil & Jugal") [Shab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shab_\(film\) "Shab (film)") [Sheer Qorma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheer_Qorma_\(film\) "Sheer Qorma (film)") [Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shubh_Mangal_Zyada_Saavdhan "Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan") [Sisak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisak_\(film\) "Sisak (film)") [Super Deluxe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Deluxe_\(film\) "Super Deluxe (film)") [The Pink Mirror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Mirror "The Pink Mirror") [Time Out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Out_\(2015_film\) "Time Out (2015 film)") [Unfreedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfreedom "Unfreedom") \| \| Events \| [Chennai International Queer Film Festival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai_International_Queer_Film_Festival "Chennai International Queer Film Festival") [KASHISH Mumbai International Queer Film Festival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KASHISH_Mumbai_International_Queer_Film_Festival "KASHISH Mumbai International Queer Film Festival") [Koovagam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koovagam "Koovagam") \| \| [Pride Marches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_pride "LGBTQ pride") \| [Ahmedabad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat_LGBTQ_Pride "Gujarat LGBTQ Pride") [Bengaluru](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengaluru_Namma_Pride_March "Bengaluru Namma Pride March") [Bhopal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Pride_March "Bhopal Pride March") [Bhubaneswar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade "Bhubaneswar Pride Parade") [Chandigarh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandigarh_LGBT_Pride_Walk "Chandigarh LGBT Pride Walk") [Chennai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai_Rainbow_Pride "Chennai Rainbow Pride") [Dehradun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehradun_Pride_Parade "Dehradun Pride Parade") [Delhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Queer_Pride_Parade "Delhi Queer Pride Parade") [Jamshedpur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamshedpur_LGBTQ_Pride "Jamshedpur LGBTQ Pride") [Gurgaon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurgaon_queer_pride "Gurgaon queer pride") [Guwahati](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Pride_Guwahati "Queer Pride Guwahati") [Hyderabad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_Queer_Pride "Hyderabad Queer Pride") [Jaipur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Gulabi_Pride_Jaipur "Queer Gulabi Pride Jaipur") [Kochi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Kerala#Pride_marches "LGBTQ rights in Kerala") [Kolkata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Rainbow_Pride_Walk "Kolkata Rainbow Pride Walk") [Lucknow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awadh_Queer_Pride "Awadh Queer Pride") [Madurai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopi_Shankar_Madurai#Social_activism "Gopi Shankar Madurai") [Mumbai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Azaadi_Mumbai "Queer Azaadi Mumbai") [Nagpur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_City_LGBT_Pride_March "Orange City LGBT Pride March") [Panaji](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_De_Goa "Pride De Goa") [Patna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patna_Pride_March "Patna Pride March") [Pune](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune_Pride "Pune Pride") \| \| Religion \| [Christianity and sexual orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality "Christianity and homosexuality") [Buddhism and sexual orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation "Buddhism and sexual orientation") [Hinduism and LGBT topics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_LGBT_topics "Hinduism and LGBT topics") [LGBT themes in Hindu mythology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_themes_in_Hindu_mythology "LGBT themes in Hindu mythology") [Bahá'í Faith and sexual orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_views_on_homosexuality "Baháʼí views on homosexuality") [LGBT people and Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_and_Islam "LGBT people and Islam") [Sikhism and sexual orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_and_sexual_orientation "Sikhism and sexual orientation") [Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism_and_sexual_orientation "Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation") \| ![](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?useformat=desktop&type=1x1&usesul3=1) Retrieved from "<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&oldid=1342787063>" [Categories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category "Help:Category"): - [British Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Empire "Category:British Empire") - [Criminalization of homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criminalization_of_homosexuality "Category:Criminalization of homosexuality") - [Legal history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_history "Category:Legal history") - [History of colonialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_colonialism "Category:History of colonialism") - [Anti-LGBTQ law in the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-LGBTQ_law_in_the_United_Kingdom "Category:Anti-LGBTQ law in the United Kingdom") - [Anti-LGBTQ law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-LGBTQ_law "Category:Anti-LGBTQ law") - [LGBTQ law in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_India "Category:LGBTQ law in India") - [LGBTQ law in Bangladesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_Bangladesh "Category:LGBTQ law in Bangladesh") - [LGBTQ law in Myanmar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_Myanmar "Category:LGBTQ law in Myanmar") - [LGBTQ law in Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBTQ_law_in_Pakistan "Category:LGBTQ law in Pakistan") Hidden categories: - [CS1 maint: archived copy as title](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title "Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title") - [Articles with short description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_short_description "Category:Articles with short description") - [Short description matches Wikidata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Short_description_matches_Wikidata "Category:Short description matches Wikidata") - [Use dmy dates from July 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Use_dmy_dates_from_July_2025 "Category:Use dmy dates from July 2025") - [Use British English from July 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Use_British_English_from_July_2025 "Category:Use British English from July 2025") - [All Wikipedia articles written in British English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Wikipedia_articles_written_in_British_English "Category:All Wikipedia articles written in British English") - [All articles with unsourced statements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements "Category:All articles with unsourced statements") - [Articles with unsourced statements from July 2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements_from_July_2025 "Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2025") - This page was last edited on 10 March 2026, at 17:59 (UTC). - Text is available under the [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_4.0_International_License "Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"); additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the [Terms of Use](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Terms_of_Use "foundation:Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Terms of Use") and [Privacy Policy](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Privacy_policy "foundation:Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Privacy policy"). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the [Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.](https://wikimediafoundation.org/), a non-profit organization. - [Privacy policy](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Privacy_policy) - [About Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About) - [Disclaimers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer) - [Contact Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us) - [Legal & safety contacts](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Legal:Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_and_Safety_Contact_Information) - [Code of Conduct](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct) - [Developers](https://developer.wikimedia.org/) - [Statistics](https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org) - [Cookie statement](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Cookie_statement) - [Mobile view](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile) - [![Wikimedia Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/footer/wikimedia.svg)](https://www.wikimedia.org/) - [![Powered by MediaWiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/resources/assets/mediawiki_compact.svg)](https://www.mediawiki.org/) Search Toggle the table of contents Section 377 9 languages [Add topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377)
Readable Markdown	Section 377 is a [British colonial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire "British Empire") [Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_code "Penal code") provision that [criminalized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization "Criminalization") all [sexual acts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity "Human sexual activity") "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in [oral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex "Oral sex") and [anal sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex "Anal sex") along with [homosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") activity. As per a Supreme Court of [India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India "India") judgement since 2018, the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years' imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize [third gender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender "Third gender") people, such as the [apwint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apwint "Apwint") in [Myanmar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar "Myanmar").[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1) In 2018, then [British Prime Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_prime_minister "British prime minister") [Theresa May](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May "Theresa May") acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2) Although the act of sodomy was sometimes prosecuted in England under British [common law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law "Common law"), it was first [codified](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_\(law\) "Codification (law)") in the [British empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire "British Empire") as Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") as "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" in 1860. Section 377 was then exported to other colonies and even to England itself, providing the legal model for the act of '[buggery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery "Buggery")' in the [Offences Against the Person Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_Against_the_Person_Act_1861 "Offences Against the Person Act 1861") (1861).[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:3-2) Alok Gupta wrote for a [Human Rights Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch "Human Rights Watch") report in 2008 that the British intended for the code to prevent [Christian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians "Christians") colonial subjects from "[corruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption "Corruption")", and to condition colonized subjects undergoing [Christianization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization "Christianization") to conform to colonial authority.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-3) This consequently had a big impact on [colonial-era sexuality in India.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_India#Colonial-era "Sexuality in India") Although Section 377 did not explicitly include the word homosexual, it has been used to prosecute [homosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") activity. The provision was introduced by authorities in the [Raj](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj "British Raj") in 1862 as [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code") and functioned as the [legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law "Law") impetus behind the [criminalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization "Criminalization") of what was referred to as, "unnatural offences" throughout the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4)[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1-5)[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2-1) In [Singapore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore "Singapore"), a similar law called [Section 377A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_\(Singapore\) "Section 377A (Singapore)") of the Singapore Penal Code was introduced in 1938 by the colonial government that had also criminalized sex between men. In 2022, then Prime Minister [Lee Hsien Loong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hsien_Loong "Lee Hsien Loong") had announced that the provision would be repealed.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:83-6)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:84-7) It was repealed on 29 November 2022 when the bill passed in Parliament.\[[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed "Wikipedia:Citation needed")\] ### Where Section 377 remains in force \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Where Section 377 remains in force")\] Although most colonies have since gained [independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence "Independence") through [statehood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_\(polity\) "State (polity)") since Section 377 was implemented, it remains in the [penal codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_codes "Penal codes") of the following countries, all of which were formerly a part of the [British Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire "British Empire"): Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was a section of the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") introduced in 1861 during the [British rule of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rule_of_India "British rule of India"). Modeled on the [Buggery Act 1533](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533 "Buggery Act 1533"), it made sexual activities "against the order of nature" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual [homosexual sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") between adults was unconstitutional, "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary",[\[9\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-9) but that Section 377 remained in force relating to sex with [minors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_\(law\) "Minor (law)"), [non-consensual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_consent "Sexual consent") sexual acts, and [bestiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiality "Bestiality").[\[10\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-10) Section 377 was fully replaced along with the rest of the Indian Penal Code by the [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita")[\[11\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-11) on 1 July 2024. Portions of the section were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to [gay sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_sex "Gay sex") by the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") in July 2009.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-12)[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-13)[\[14\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-14) That judgement was overturned by the [Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") (SC) on 11 December 2013 in [Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Kumar_Koushal_vs._Naz_Foundation "Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation"). The Court held that amending or repealing section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.[\[15\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-15)[\[16\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-16) On 6 February 2016, a three-member bench of the Court reviewed curative petitions submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") and others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench.[\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17) On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution in the landmark [Puttaswamy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_K._S._Puttaswamy_\(Retd.\)_and_Anr._vs_Union_Of_India_And_Ors. "Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.") judgement. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the [fundamental rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights "Fundamental rights") and that the rights of the [LGBT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT "LGBT") population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377.[\[19\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-19)[\[20\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-20)[\[21\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-21) In January 2018, the [Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 Naz Foundation judgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtej_Singh_Johar_v._Union_of_India "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India") that Section 377 was unconstitutional "in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex".[\[22\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-22)[\[23\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-23) The judgment was given by a five-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India [Dipak Misra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_Misra "Dipak Misra"), Justices [R. F. Nariman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman "Rohinton Fali Nariman"), [D. Y. Chandrachud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud "Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud"), [A. M. Khanwilkar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar "Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar") and [Indu Malhotra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indu_Malhotra "Indu Malhotra").\[[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed "Wikipedia:Citation needed")\] > 377\. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.[\[24\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-24)[\[25\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-25) [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg/250px-Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bhubaneswar_Pride_Parade_2018_02.jpg) Participant carrying a poster on Section 377 during [Bhubaneswar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhubaneswar "Bhubaneswar") Pride Parade In 2008 Additional [Solicitor General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_India "Solicitor General of India") PP Malhotra said: "[Homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. \[Decriminalising homosexuality\] may create \[a\] breach of peace. If it is allowed then \[the\] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society." This view was shared by the Home Ministry.[\[26\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-26) 11 December 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377 was met with support from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it "the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other's religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment" The Daily News and Analysis article added that Baba [Ramdev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramdev "Ramdev"), India's well-known yoga guru, after praying that journalists not "turn homosexual", stated he could "cure" homosexuality through yoga and called it "a bad addiction".[\[27\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-27) #### Opposition and criticism \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: Opposition and criticism")\] The [Ministry of Health and Family Welfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Health_and_Family_Welfare "Ministry of Health and Family Welfare") opposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti-[HIV/AIDS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS "HIV/AIDS") efforts.[\[28\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-28)[\[29\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-29) According to the [NCRB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Records_Bureau "National Crime Records Bureau"), in 2015, 1,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women.[\[30\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-30) [Human Rights Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch "Human Rights Watch") also argued that the law had been used to harass [HIV/AIDS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS "AIDS") prevention efforts, as well as [sex workers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker "Sex worker"), [homosexuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuals "Homosexuals"), and other groups at risk of the disease,[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-31) even though those found guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that relate to Section 377 may face a life sentence under a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC.[\[32\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-32) The [People's Union for Civil Liberties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Union_for_Civil_Liberties "People's Union for Civil Liberties") has published two reports on the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[\[33\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-33) and, in particular, [transsexuals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual "Transsexual") in India.[\[34\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-34) In 2006, Section 377 came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[\[35\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-35) most prominently [Vikram Seth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Seth "Vikram Seth"). The law subsequently drew even more criticism from several ministers, most prominently [Anbumani Ramadoss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbumani_Ramadoss "Anbumani Ramadoss")[\[36\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Mexico_AIDS_conference-36) and [Oscar Fernandes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Fernandes "Oscar Fernandes").[\[37\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-37) In 2008, a judge of the [Bombay High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_High_Court "Bombay High Court") also called for the scrapping of the law.[\[38\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-38) The [United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations "United Nations") also said that the ban violated international law. [United Nations human rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council "United Nations Human Rights Council") chief [Navi Pillay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navi_Pillay "Navi Pillay") stated that "Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified", and that the decision "represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights.", voicing hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure.[\[39\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-39) ### View of political parties \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=8 "Edit section: View of political parties")\] #### Opposition to repeal \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=9 "Edit section: Opposition to repeal")\] [Rajnath Singh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajnath_Singh "Rajnath Singh"), a member of the ruling party [BJP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party "Bharatiya Janata Party") and the Home Minister, is on record shortly after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is "unambiguously" in favour of the law, also claiming that "We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported."[\[40\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-40) [Yogi Adityanath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Adityanath "Yogi Adityanath"), BJP [MP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_parliament,_Lok_Sabha "Member of parliament, Lok Sabha"), welcomed the 2013 verdict and will "oppose any move to decriminalise homosexuality."[\[41\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0a-41) The [Samajwadi Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samajwadi_Party "Samajwadi Party") made it clear that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality "unethical and immoral".[\[42\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-42) [Ram Gopal Yadav](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Gopal_Yadav "Ram Gopal Yadav") stated that they support the Supreme Court decision as "It is completely against the culture of our nation."[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) The Congress party-led [UPA government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Progressive_Alliance "United Progressive Alliance") also supported the law during the initial [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") case, stating that gay sex was 'immoral' and that it cannot be decriminalized.[\[43\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-43) [Bharatiya Janata Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party "Bharatiya Janata Party") leader [Subramanian Swamy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subramanian_Swamy "Subramanian Swamy") said that homosexuality was not a normal thing and was against [Hindutva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva "Hindutva").[\[44\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-44) He went on to say that it was "a danger to our national security" and that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. He added that "there is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll be a cover for [pedophiles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia "Pedophilia") and a huge rise in HIV cases."[\[45\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-45) After the 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court, the [Indian Union Muslim League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Union_Muslim_League "Indian Union Muslim League") continued to oppose decriminalisation, saying 'homosexuality is against Indian culture'.[\[46\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-46) Former Finance Minister and BJP member [Arun Jaitley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Jaitley "Arun Jaitley") said that "Supreme Court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order which de-criminalized consensual sex between gay adults" and "When millions of people the world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed."[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\[48\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-48) BJP spokesperson [Shaina NC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaina_NC "Shaina NC") said her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. "We are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward."[\[49\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-49) In December 2013, [Indian National Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress "Indian National Congress") President [Rahul Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahul_Gandhi "Rahul Gandhi") came out in support of LGBT rights and said that "every individual had the right to choose". He also said "These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, freedom of expression. So let that be. I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement", he said. The LGBT rights movement in India was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections.[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47) [Sonia Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi "Sonia Gandhi") also shared a similar view.[\[50\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-50) Senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister [P. Chidambaram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._Chidambaram "P. Chidambaram") stated that the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation judgement must be quickly reversed.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) He also said that "Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck down or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement by Justice AP Shah."[\[51\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-51) The [RSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh") revised its position, the leader [Dattatreya Hosabale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dattatreya_Hosabale "Dattatreya Hosabale") reportedly saying, "no criminalisation, but no glorification either."[\[52\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-52) RSS chief [Mohan Bhagwat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohan_Bhagwat "Mohan Bhagwat") also came out in support of the LGBTQIA+ community stating that they should be accepted as an integral part of society. After the 2013 verdict, the [Aam Aadmi Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aam_Aadmi_Party "Aam Aadmi Party") put on their website: > The [Aam Aadmi party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aam_Aadmi_Party "Aam Aadmi Party") is disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Section 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") on the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the police. This not only violates the human rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will also step in to repeal this archaic law.[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47) [Brinda Karat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinda_Karat "Brinda Karat") of the [Communist Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_\(Marxist\) "Communist Party of India (Marxist)") said the SC order was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is wrong.[\[53\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-53) [Shivanand Tiwari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivanand_Tiwari "Shivanand Tiwari"), leader of [Janata Dal United](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janata_Dal_\(United\) "Janata Dal (United)"), did not support the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court "Supreme court") decision, calling [homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") practical and constitutional. He added that "This happens in society and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Court trying to stop them?"[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) [Derek O'Brien](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_O%27Brien_\(politician\) "Derek O'Brien (politician)") of the [Trinamool Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Trinamool_Congress "All India Trinamool Congress") said that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal world we live in today.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:0-4) On 18 December 2015, [Lok Sabha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lok_Sabha "Lok Sabha") member [Shashi Tharoor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashi_Tharoor "Shashi Tharoor") of the [Indian National Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress "Indian National Congress") introduced a [private member's bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill "Private member's bill") to replace Section 377 in the [Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") and decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24.[\[54\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54) For his part, Tharoor expressed surprise at the bill's rejection at this early stage. He said that he did not have time to rally support and that he will attempt to reintroduce the bill.[\[54\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-indianexpress.com-54) In March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's bill to decriminalize [homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality") but was voted down for the second time.[\[55\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-55) #### 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=13 "Edit section: 2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi")\] [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf/page1-250px-Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP%28C%29_No.7455_2001.pdf.jpg)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Section_377_-_Delhi_High_Court_-_WP\(C\)_No.7455_2001.pdf) The judgement of the [High Court of Delhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Delhi "High Court of Delhi") of 2 July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex among adults The movement to repeal Section 377 was initiated by [AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Bhedbhav_Virodhi_Andolan "AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan") in 1991. Their historic publication Less than Gay: A Citizen's Report, spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. [A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India'](https://web.archive.org/web/20120406222219/http://archive.epw.in/data/PDF/001189_EPW_3_2_1996_Vol_XXXI_No_5/COMMENTARY_Gay%20Rights%20in%20India.pdf) chronicles this early history. As the case prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led by the [Naz Foundation (India) Trust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust"), an activist group, which filed a [public interest litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation "Public interest litigation") in the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") in 2001, seeking the legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[\[56\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Chronology-56) The [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") worked with a legal team from the [Lawyers Collective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyers_Collective "Lawyers Collective") to engage in court.[\[57\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-57) In 2003, the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the petitioners, had no [locus standi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_standi "Locus standi") in the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent past under this section it seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") in the absence of a petitioner with standing. [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the [High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_court "High court") to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this case and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on merit.[\[58\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-58) Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights activists called 'Voices Against 377', which supported the demand to 'read down' section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.[\[59\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-59) There was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with [Navtej Singh Johar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtej_Singh_Johar "Navtej Singh Johar") and drew from his personal experiences while protesting. [Ritu Dalmia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritu_Dalmia "Ritu Dalmia") also demonstrated keen activism. [Aman Nath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aman_Nath "Aman Nath"), a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Section 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg died.[\[60\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-60) Ayesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent e-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out about her sexuality. Over time, she gained the courage to come out and challenge Section 377.[\[61\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-61) In May 2008, the case came up for hearing in the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court"), but the Government was undecided on its position, with The [Ministry of Home Affairs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_home_affairs "Ministry of home affairs") maintaining a contradictory position to that of the Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Section 377 with respect to [homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality "Homosexuality").[\[62\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-62) On 7 November 2008, the seven-year-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Home Ministry opposed such a move.[\[63\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-63) On 12 June 2009, India's new law minister [Veerappa Moily](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerappa_Moily "Veerappa Moily") agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.[\[64\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-64) Eventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section,[\[65\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65) legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults.[\[66\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-BBC1-66) The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice [Ajit Prakash Shah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Prakash_Shah "Ajit Prakash Shah") and Justice [S. Muralidhar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Muralidhar "S. Muralidhar") said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law. The two-judge bench went on to hold that: > If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as 'deviants' or 'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised. > > Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination. > > This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.[\[67\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Judgement-67) The court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.[\[65\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-CNNIBN-65) A batch of appeals were filed with the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India"), challenging the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court") judgment. On 27 March 2012, the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court "Supreme court") reserved verdict on these.[\[68\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68) After initially opposing the judgement, the [Attorney General](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_India "Attorney General of India") [G. E. Vahanvati](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Vahanvati "G. E. Vahanvati") decided not to file any appeal against the [Delhi High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_High_Court "Delhi High Court")'s verdict, stating, "insofar as \[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code\] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private \[before it was struck down by the High Court\] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers."[\[68\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-The_Hindu_2012-68) #### 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=14 "Edit section: 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation")\] Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-judge [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India") bench consisting of [G. S. Singhvi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._S._Singhvi "G. S. Singhvi") and [S. J. Mukhopadhaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._J._Mukhopadhaya "S. J. Mukhopadhaya") overturned the Delhi High Court case [Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_v._Govt._of_NCT_of_Delhi "Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi") and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This ruling was despite the urging of a group of mental health professionals who filed a collection of written submissions to the Supreme court with commentary on the case grounded in their expert opinion[\[69\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-69) The mental health professionals noted that they frequently see LGBT or queer clients who suffer significant psychological distress—depression, anxiety, and more—due to the threat and social censure posed by IPC 377. These mental health professionals argued that IPC 377 causes LGBT and queer individuals to feel that they are "criminals", and that this status is a significant part of their psychological distress. The United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay[\[70\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-70) voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it "a significant step backwards" for the country. In the wake of [Indian Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India")'s ruling that gay sex is illegal, UN chief [Ban Ki-moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Ki-moon "Ban Ki-moon") stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals.[\[71\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-71) Soon after the judgement, [Sonia Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi "Sonia Gandhi"), President of the then ruling [Congress party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_party "Congress party"), asked Parliament to do away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-president, [Rahul Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahul_Gandhi "Rahul Gandhi") also wanted section-377 to go and supported gay rights.[\[72\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-72) In July 2014, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju in the [BJP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party "Bharatiya Janata Party") led [Central government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_government "Central government") told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a decision regarding Section 377 of IPC can be taken only after pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court.[\[73\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-73) However, on 13 January 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, appearing on NDTV, stated, "We \[BJP\] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward."[\[74\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-74) #### 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=15 "Edit section: 2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition")\] On 2 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the [Naz Foundation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Foundation_\(India\)_Trust "Naz Foundation (India) Trust") and others came for hearing in the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court "Supreme court"). The three-member bench headed by the [Chief Justice of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_India "Chief Justice of India") [T. S. Thakur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Thakur "T. S. Thakur") said that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench.[\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-Indian_Express-17) #### Right to Privacy verdict \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=16 "Edit section: Right to Privacy verdict")\] On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the [Right to Privacy verdict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Privacy_verdict "Right to Privacy verdict"). In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a "discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy." In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, [Justice Chandrachud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud "Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud") (who authored for Justices [Khehar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdish_Singh_Khehar "Jagdish Singh Khehar"), [Agarwal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajesh_Kumar_Agrawal "Rajesh Kumar Agrawal"), [Abdul Nazeer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Abdul_Nazeer "S. Abdul Nazeer") and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. [Justice Kaul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Kishan_Kaul "Sanjay Kishan Kaul") agreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the [Constitution of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India "Constitution of India").[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) > Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) > > ...Their rights are not "so-called" but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine. They inhere in the right to life. They dwell in privacy and dignity. They constitute the essence of liberty and freedom. Sexual orientation is an essential component of identity. Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:2a-18) However, as the curative petition (challenging Section 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts have suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the ground-work for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the [High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_court "High court"), thereby decriminalizing [homosexual sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_sexual_practices "Homosexual sexual practices").[\[75\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-75)[\[76\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-76) #### 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India \[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_377&action=edit&section=17 "Edit section: 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India")\] In 2018, after decades of [grassroots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots "Grassroots") activism, the application of [section 377 of the Indian Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code "Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code") to private consensual sex between men was ruled unconstitutional by India's [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India "Supreme Court of India"), effectively [decriminalizing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalizing "Decriminalizing") homosexual activity.[\[47\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-:1a-47)[\[77\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-77) The five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of chief justice [Dipak Misra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_Misra "Dipak Misra") and justices [Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjaya_Y._Chandrachud "Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud"), [Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajay_Manikrao_Khanwilkar "Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar"), [Indu Malhotra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indu_Malhotra "Indu Malhotra"), and [Rohinton Fali Nariman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohinton_Fali_Nariman "Rohinton Fali Nariman") started hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The [Union Government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India "Government of India") did not take a position on the issue and left it to the "wisdom of the court" to decide on Section 377. The petitioners invoked the right to [sexual privacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_reproductive_health_and_rights "Sexual and reproductive health and rights"), [dignity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity "Dignity"), right against discrimination and freedom of expression to argue against the constitutionality of Section 377. After hearing the petitioners' plea for four days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018.[\[78\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-78) Announcing the verdict, the court reversed its own 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the [IPC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code "Indian Penal Code") to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act.[\[79\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-79)[\[80\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-80) In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law "irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible."[\[81\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-81)[\[82\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-82) [The Wire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire_\(India\) "The Wire (India)") drew parallels between the supreme court's judgement and [Privy Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_Office_\(Canada\) "Privy Council Office (Canada)")'s 1929 verdict in [Edwards vs Canada (AG)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v_Canada_\(AG\) "Edwards v Canada (AG)") that allowed for Women to sit in the [Senate of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada "Senate of Canada"). It compared the petitioners to the Canadian [Famous Five](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Famous_Five_\(Canada\) "The Famous Five (Canada)").[\[83\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-auto-83) In 2011, Italian film maker Adele Tulli, made 365 Without 377 which followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in [Bombay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay "Bombay") celebrations.[\[84\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-84) It won the [Turin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin "Turin") LGBT Film Fest award in 2011.[\[85\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_note-85) - [LGBT rights in Bangladesh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Bangladesh "LGBT rights in Bangladesh") - [LGBT rights in India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_India "LGBT rights in India") - [LGBT rights in Myanmar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Myanmar "LGBT rights in Myanmar") - [LGBT rights in Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Pakistan "LGBT rights in Pakistan") - [LGBT rights in Sri Lanka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Sri_Lanka "LGBT rights in Sri Lanka") - [Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_365_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Penal_Code "Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code") - [Sodomy law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law "Sodomy law") - [LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations "LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations") 1. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2_1-1) Chua, Lynette J.; Gilbert, David (2016). "State violence, human-rights violations and the case of apwint of Myanmar". Gender, Violence and the State in Asia. Taylor & Francis. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781317325949](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781317325949 "Special:BookSources/9781317325949") . 2. ^ [a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:3_2-1) Rao, Rahul (2020). Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–9\. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9780190865535](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780190865535 "Special:BookSources/9780190865535") . 3. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-3)* Gupta, Alok (2008). This Alien Legacy: The Origins of "Anti-Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism. Human Rights Watch. p. 16. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781564324191](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781564324191 "Special:BookSources/9781564324191") . 4. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-3) [e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0_4-4) Stoddard, Eve; Collins, John (2016). Social and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 135. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781317509776](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781317509776 "Special:BookSources/9781317509776") . 5. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1_5-0)* McCann, Hannah; Monaghan, Whitney (2020). Queer Theory Now. Red Globe Press. p. 163. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_\(identifier\) "ISBN (identifier)") [9781352007510](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781352007510 "Special:BookSources/9781352007510") . 6. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:83_6-0) ["NDR 2022: Govt to repeal Section 377A, amend Constitution to protect marriage definition from legal challenges"](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ndr-2022-section-377a-repeal-constitution-1974206). TODAY. Retrieved 21 August 2022. 7. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:84_7-0) Auto, Hermes (21 August 2022). ["NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Section 377A, decriminalise sex between men \\| The Straits Times"](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-govt-will-repeal-section-377a-decriminalise-sex-between-men). www.straitstimes.com. Retrieved 21 August 2022. 8. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-elliott_8-3) Elliott, Josh (6 September 2018). ["India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't"](https://globalnews.ca/news/4430721/india-gay-sex-supreme-court-pakistan-bangladesh/). Global News. Retrieved 19 January 2022. 9. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-9)* Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018). ["SC decriminalises homosexuality"](https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/sc-decriminalises-homosexuality/article24887363.ece). The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com. 10. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-10) Pundir, Pallavi (6 September 2018). ["I Am What I Am. Take Me as I Am"](https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-am-what-i-am-take-me-as-i-am/). [Vice News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_News "Vice News"). Retrieved 8 September 2018. 11. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-11) ["BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023"](https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf) (PDF). 12. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-12) ["Delhi high court decriminalizes homosexuality"](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/sl3bjL7PX8MzUeOhPGejyI/Delhi-high-court-decriminalizes-homosexuality.html). www.livemint.com. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 13. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-13) ["Indian court decriminalises homosexuality in Delhi"](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/homosexuality-decriminalised-delhi-india). the Guardian. Associated Press. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 14. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-14) Nidal Al-Mughrabi. ["Delhi High Court overturns ban on gay sex"](https://web.archive.org/web/20180710195502/https://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40752720090702). IN. Archived from [the original](https://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-40752720090702) on 10 July 2018. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 15. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-15) Monalisa (11 December 2013). ["Policy"](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/FHDQ9yB2jRJMsOlNCQrkgL/Supreme-Court-to-rule-on-legality-of-gay-sex-today.html). Livemint. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 16. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-16) Venkatesan, J. (11 December 2013). ["Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC verdict decriminalising gay sex"](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-hc-verdict-decriminalising-gay-sex/article5446939.ece). The Hindu. [ISSN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSN_\(identifier\) "ISSN (identifier)") [0971-751X](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018. 17. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Indian_Express_17-1) ["Supreme Court agrees to hear petition on Section 376, refers matter to five-judge bench"](http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-petition-on-section-377-refers-matter-to-five-judge-bench/). 2 February 2016. Retrieved 2 February 2016. 18. ^ [a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:2a_18-3) ["Right to Privacy Judgement"](https://web.archive.org/web/20170828075957/http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP\(C\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 24 August 2017. pp. 121, 123–24\. Archived from [the original](http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP\(C\)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf) (PDF) on 28 August 2017. 19. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-19)* Balakrishnan, Pulapre (25 August 2017). ["Endgame for Section 377?"](https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/endgame-for-section-377/article19555379.ece). The Hindu. [ISSN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSN_\(identifier\) "ISSN (identifier)") [0971-751X](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0971-751X). Retrieved 10 July 2018. 20. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-20) ["Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place"](https://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-rights-old-judicial-wrongs-in-landmark-right-to-privacy-verdict-shows-state-its-rightful-place-3984011.html). www.firstpost.com. 29 August 2017. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 21. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-21) ["Right to Privacy Judgment Makes Section 377 Very Hard to Defend, Says Judge Who Read It Down"](https://thewire.in/gender/ap-shah-377-right-to-privacy). The Wire. Retrieved 10 July 2018. 22. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-22) [Judgment](https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf), par. 156. 23. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-23) ["Supreme Court Scraps Section 377; 'Majoritarian Views Cannot Dictate Rights,' Says CJI"](https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-scraps-section-377-majoritarian-views-cannot-dictate-rights-says-cji). The Wire. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 24. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-24) ["Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code"](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836974/). Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 30 October 2017. 25. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-25) ["The Indian Penal Code, 1860"](https://web.archive.org/web/20070114135350/http://chddistrictcourts.gov.in/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF). Chandigarh District Court. Archived from [the original](http://chddistrictcourts.gov.in/THE%20INDIAN%20PENAL%20CODE.pdf) (PDF) on 14 January 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2017. 26. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-26) ["HC pulls up government for homosexuality doublespeak"](https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/hc-pulls-up-government-for-homosexuality-doublespeak-30548-2008-09-26). India Today. 26 September 2008. 27. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-27) ["Rare unity: Religious leaders come out in support of Section 377"](http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-rare-unity-religious-leaders-come-out-in-support-of-section-377-1933612). DNAIndia.com. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 28. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-28) ["Section 377 and the law: What courts have said about homosexuality over time"](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/section-377-and-the-law-what-courts-have-said-about-homosexuality-over-time/story-66xXSTFILnBYo5hE7yNaKL.html). hindustantimes.com/. 5 February 2018. Retrieved 24 September 2018. 29. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-29) ["Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC"](https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc/613434). outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 24 September 2018. 30. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-30) Thomas, Shibu (29 September 2016). ["14% of those arrested under section 377 last year were minors"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/14-of-those-arrested-under-section-377-last-year-were-minors/articleshow/54573741.cms). The Times Of India. Retrieved 4 November 2017. 31. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-31) [India: Repeal Colonial-Era Sodomy Law](https://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/11/india12398.htm), report from [Human Rights Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch "Human Rights Watch"), 11 January 2006. 32. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-32) ["Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code"](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/970675/). IndianKanoon.org. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 33. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-33) ["Archived copy"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090725200649/http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REport%201). Archived from [the original](http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REport%201) on 25 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title "Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title")) 34. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-34) ["Archived copy"](https://web.archive.org/web/20070202173932/http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REPORT%202003). Archived from [the original](http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REPORT%202003) on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 5 February 2007. `{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title "Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title")) 35. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-35) Ramesh, Randeep (18 September 2006). ["India's literary elite call for anti-gay law to be scrapped"](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/18/gayrights.books). The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 September 2007. 36. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Mexico_AIDS_conference_36-0) Kounteya Sinha (9 August 2008). ["Legalise homosexuality: Ramadoss"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Legalise-homosexuality-Ramadoss/articleshow/3342815.cms). [The Times of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India "The Times of India"). [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20121025201512/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-08-09/india/27931000_1_hiv-epidemic-national-aids-control-organization-msms) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 37. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-37) Vikram Doctor (2 July 2008). ["Reverse swing: It may be an open affair for gays, lesbians"](http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Reverse_swing_It_may_be_an_open_affair_for_gays_lesbians/articleshow/3186187.cms). [The Economic Times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Times "The Economic Times"). Retrieved 2 July 2009. 38. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-38) Shibu Thomas (25 July 2008). ["Unnatural-sex law needs relook: Bombay HC"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Unnatural-sex_law_needs_relook_Mumbai_HC/rssarticleshow/3276516.cms). The Times of India. Retrieved 12 February 2009. 39. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-39) ["Ban on gay sex violates international law"](https://web.archive.org/web/20180908015737/https://in.reuters.com/article/india-rights-gay-un/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212). Reuters. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http://in.reuters.com/article/india-rights-gay-un/ban-on-gay-sex-violates-international-law-u-n-idINDEE9BB04N20131212) on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2017. 40. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-40) Rameshan, Radhika (13 December 2011). ["BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexuality"](https://web.archive.org/web/20131216103934/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131214/jsp/nation/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw). The Telegraph. Archived from [the original](https://www.telegraphindia.com/1131214/jsp/nation/story_17679913.jsp#.VROkUJOUeHw) on 16 December 2013. 41. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:0a_41-0) Jyoti, Dhrubo (12 December 2013). ["Political Leaders React To Supreme Court Judgement On Sec 377"](https://web.archive.org/web/20140511041143/http://www.gaylaxymag.com/latest-news/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377/#gs.jTP9N1c). Gaylaxy. Archived from [the original](http://www.gaylaxymag.com/latest-news/political-leaders-react-to-supreme-court-judgement-on-sec-377/#gs.jTP9N1c) on 11 May 2014. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 42. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-42) ["Homosexuality Is Unethical And Immoral: Samajwadi Party"](http://www.news18.com/videos/politics/samajwadi-party-on-section-377-655768.html). News 18. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 43. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-43) ["Gay sex is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC"](https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/gay-sex-is-immoral-and-cant-be-decriminalised-govt-tells-hc/613434). www.outlookindia.com. Retrieved 11 September 2018. 44. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-44) ["Being gay is against Hindutva, it needs a cure: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/being-gay-is-against-hindutva-it-needs-a-cure-bjp-mp-subramanian-swamy/articleshow/64927333.cms). The Times of India. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2020. 45. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-45) ["Section 377: Homosexuality against Hindutva, cannot celebrate it, says BJP leader Subramanian Swamy \\| India News"](https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/section-377-homosexuality-hindutva-gay-sex-lgbt-subramanian-swamy-supreme-court-of-india-section-377-curative-petition-article-377-sec-377-ipc-carnal/252246). www.timesnownews.com. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 11 April 2019. 46. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-46) ["Indian Union Muslim League opposes Supreme Court verdict, says it is against Indian culture"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/trichy/indian-union-muslim-league-opposes-sc-verdict-says-it-is-against-indian-culture/articleshow/65712288.cms). Times of India. 47. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-1) [c](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-2) [d](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-:1a_47-3) Hans, Namit (14 February 2017). ["Increasing support for gay rights from BJP leaders. A rainbow in sight?"](http://www.catchnews.com/national-news/most-indian-political-parties-back-lgbt-rights-a-rainbow-in-sight-1449397534.html). Catch News. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 48. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-48)* Roy, Sandip (3 February 2016). ["The BJP And Its 377 Problem"](http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/02/03/section-377_0_n_9146832.html). HuffPost. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 49. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-49) ["BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC"](http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). 14 January 2015. 50. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-50) ["Statements of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on Section 377 exposes character of Congress leaders: Baba Ramdev"](http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-statements-of-sonia-rahul-gandhi-and-kapil-sibal-on-section-377-exposes-character-of-congress-leaders-baba-ramdev-1934573). DNAIndia.com. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 51. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-51) ["Court should take relook at Section 377 after today's verdict: Chidambaram"](http://www.uniindia.com/court-should-take-relook-at-section-377-after-today-s-verdict-chidambaram/india/news/969519.html). United News of India. 24 August 2017. Retrieved 4 November 2017. 52. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-52) Tiwari, Ravish (19 March 2016). ["Section 377: Unlike RSS, BJP shies away from taking a stand on homosexuality"](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/section-377-unlike-rss-bjp-shies-away-from-taking-a-stand-on-homosexuality/articleshow/51464248.cms). The Economic Times. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 53. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-53) ["Section 377: Where does each party stand?"](http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/section-377-where-does-each-party-stand-36408). The News Minute. 29 November 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2017. 54. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-indianexpress.com_54-1) ["Shashi Tharoor's bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha"](http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/shashi-tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-homosexuality-defeated-in-ls/). IndianExpress.com. 18 December 2015. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 55. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-55)* ["BJP thwarting Bill on gays: Tharoor"](http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tharoors-bill-to-decriminalise-gay-sex-defeated-again/article8342075.ece). The Hindu. 11 March 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016. 56. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Chronology_56-0) ["Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090705183512/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights/96152-3.html). CNN-IBN. Archived from [the original](http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights/96152-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 57. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-57) Kian Ganz (2 July 2009). ["Lawyers Collective overturns anti-gay law"](http://www.legallyindia.com/2009070276/News/lawyers-collective-overturns-anti-gay-law). legallyindia.com. Retrieved 9 April 2011. 58. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-58) Sheela Bhatt (3 February 2006). ["Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC"](http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/03gay.htm?q=tp&file=.htm). Rediff News. Retrieved 7 July 2009. 59. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-59) Shibu Thomas (20 May 2008). ["Delhi HC to take up PIL on LGBT rights"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delhi-HC-to-take-up-PIL-on-gay-rights/articleshow/3054907.cms). [The Times of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India "The Times of India"). [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20121025121052/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-05-20/india/27743991_1_decriminalise-homosexuality-gay-couple-pil-on-gay-rights) from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009. 60. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-60) ["Section 377: The famous and fearless 5 who convinced SC - Times of India ►"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/section-377-the-famous-and-fearless-5-who-convinced-sc/articleshow/62421886.cms). The Times of India. Retrieved 26 September 2018. 61. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-61) Schultz, Kai (2 June 2018). ["Gay in India, Where Progress Has Come Only With Risk"](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/world/asia/gay-in-india-where-progress-has-come-only-with-risk.html). The New York Times. Retrieved 26 September 2018. 62. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-62) ["Centre divided on punishment of homosexuality"](http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1165375). DNA. 63. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-63) ["Delhi high court all set to rule on same-sex activity petition - Livemint"](http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/07220242/Delhi-high-court-all-set-to-ru.html). www.Livemint.com. Retrieved 30 December 2017. 64. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-64) ["Moily signals rethink on anti-gay law"](https://web.archive.org/web/20121025201523/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-06-12/india/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi). [The Times of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India "The Times of India"). 12 June 2009. Archived from [the original](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-06-12/india/28184786_1_anti-gay-law-veerappa-moily-ashok-row-kavi) on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009. 65. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-CNNIBN_65-1) ["Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090705172824/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex/96148-3.html). [CNN-IBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN-IBN "CNN-IBN"). Archived from [the original](http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-high-court-legalises-consensual-gay-sex/96148-3.html) on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 66. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-BBC1_66-0)* ["Gay sex decriminalised in India"](https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8129836.stm). [BBC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC "BBC"). 2 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 67. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-Judgement_67-0) ["Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090826035913/http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgement/02-07-2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF). Delhi High Court. Archived from [the original](http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgement/02-07-2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf) (PDF) on 26 August 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009. 68. ^ [*a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-0) [b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-The_Hindu_2012_68-1) ["Verdict reserved on appeals in gay sex case"](http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3250607.ece). The Hindu. New Delhi, India. 27 March 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012. 69. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-69)* Shesadri, Shekha; et al. ["Mental Health Professionals--Written Submissions"](http://orinam.net/377/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/SC_MentalHealthProfessionals_WrittenSubmissions.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2021. 70. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-70) ["United Nations Criticizes SC Verdict on Sec 377"](https://web.archive.org/web/20140221155213/http://www.enewspaperofindia.com/News/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx). enewspaper of India. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http://www.enewspaperofindia.com/News/United-Nations-criticizes-SC-verdict-on-Sec-377_news_257.aspx) on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 71. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-71) ["UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for equality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals"](https://web.archive.org/web/20131216050212/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-12/news/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights). The Economic Times. 12 December 2013. Archived from [the original](http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-12/news/45123244_1_lgbt-rights-ban-ki-moon-human-rights) on 16 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 72. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-72) ["Rahul Gandhi too wants Section 377 to go, supports gay rights"](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/rahul-gandhi-wants-section-377-to-go-supports-gay-rights-220587-2013-12-12). India Today Online New Delhi. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 73. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-73) Press Trust of India (22 July 2014). ["No plans to amend Section 377 till SC decision: Modi govt"](http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-plans-to-amend-section-377-till-sc-decision-govt/). The Indian Express. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 74. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-74) Ratnam, Dhamini (14 January 2015). ["BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC"](http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/XCOl7cJw5t3DgnQZsFYIFO/BJP-supports-decriminalization-of-homosexuality-Shaina-NC.html). Mint. Retrieved 22 March 2021. 75. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-75) ["Legal experts on 377 and Right to Privacy"](http://www.livelaw.in/privacy-bench-affirms-lgbt-rights-disagrees-with-suresh-koushal-judgment-on-377-ipc/). 24 August 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017. 76. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-76) ["The Hindu on 377 and Right to Privacy"](http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/target-section-377/article19563070.ece). [The Hindu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu "The Hindu"). 25 August 2017. 77. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-77) ["India Just Decriminalized Gay Sex"](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/india-section-377-gay-sex). BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 78. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-78) ["Section 377 Verdict By Supreme Court Tomorrow: 10-Point Guide"](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/section-377-supreme-court-verdict-tomorrow-1911822). NDTV.com. Retrieved 5 September 2018. 79. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-79) ["One India, Equal In Love: Supreme Court Ends Section 377"](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/homosexuality-no-longer-a-crime-in-india-supreme-court-ends-controversial-section-377-1912202?browserpush=true). NDTV.com. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 80. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-80) ["India decriminalises gay sex in landmark verdict"](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/india-decriminalises-gay-sex-landmark-verdict-180906051219637.html). www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 81. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-81) ["'Gay sex is not a crime,' says Supreme Court in historic judgment"](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/gay-sex-is-not-a-crime-says-supreme-court-in-historic-judgement/articleshow/65695172.cms). The Times of India. Retrieved 6 September 2018. 82. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-82) ["NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. \[2018\] INSC 746 (6 September 2018)"](http://www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/2018/746.html). Legal Information Institute of India. Retrieved 1 April 2020. 83. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-auto_83-0) ["From Canada to India, 'Valiant Five' Have Secured a Marginalised Group's Rights"](https://thewire.in/rights/section-377-persons-case-canada-lgbt). The Wire. Retrieved 12 September 2018. 84. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-84) ["365 without 377 - Adele Tulli"](https://web.archive.org/web/20190514232556/http://www.queerdocumentaries.com/en/documentaries/documentary/365-without-377). www.queerdocumentaries.com. Archived from [the original](http://www.queerdocumentaries.com/en/documentaries/documentary/365-without-377) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019. 85. [^](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#cite_ref-85) Paternò, Cristiana (11 February 2019). ["Adele Tulli: "Italy is a lab for gender""](https://web.archive.org/web/20190514232553/https://news.cinecitta.com/EN/en/news/104/77714/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx). news.cinecitta.com. Archived from [the original](https://news.cinecitta.com/EN/en/news/104/77714/adele-tulli-italy-is-a-lab-for-gender.aspx) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019. - McGoldrick, Dominic (2019). "Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India". Human Rights Law Review. 19 (1): 173–185\. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_\(identifier\) "Doi (identifier)"):[10\.1093/hrlr/ngy041](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fhrlr%2Fngy041). - Sanders, Douglas E. (2009). ["377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia"](https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). Asian Journal of Comparative Law. 4: 1–49\. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_\(identifier\) "Doi (identifier)"):[10\.1017/S2194607800000417](https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS2194607800000417). [S2CID](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2CID_\(identifier\) "S2CID (identifier)") [154403178](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154403178). - [Male-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in South Asia: an analysis of the politico-legal framework](http://www.risksandresponsibilities.org/ArvindNarrain.pdf), Arvind Narrain & Brototi Dutta, 2006. - [Official website of the Naz Foundation of (India) Trust](https://archive.today/20120630065247/http://www.nazindia.org/advocacy.htm) (archived) - [Section 377 – Indian Penal Code, 1860](http://devgan.in/ipc/section/377/) (Mobile)
Shard	152 (laksa)
Root Hash	17790707453426894952
Unparsed URL	org,wikipedia!en,/wiki/Section_377 s443