2013 (12) TMI 1454 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally unsustainable?

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 377 IPC.
2. Violation of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution.
3. Application of judicial review and presumption of constitutionality.
4. Misuse of Section 377 IPC and its impact on LGBT rights.
5. Interpretation of "carnal intercourse against the order of nature."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 377 IPC:
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 377 IPC, which criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," is constitutionally valid. The Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality that applies to all laws, including pre-Constitutional laws, unless a clear constitutional violation is proved. The Court noted that Parliament, despite various debates and recommendations, including the 172nd Law Commission Report, has chosen not to amend or repeal Section 377 IPC. This indicates that the legislature, representing the will of the people, does not find the provision unconstitutional.

2. Violation of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution:
The High Court had declared Section 377 IPC violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15, arguing that it infringes on the right to privacy, autonomy, and dignity of individuals, particularly those from the LGBT community. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court's decision was based on insufficient factual foundation and speculative data. The Court held that the classification made by Section 377 IPC does not violate Article 14, as it applies to all individuals regardless of gender or sexual orientation and is not arbitrary or irrational. The Court also ruled that the section does not infringe on the right to privacy under Article 21, as the right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted by law.

3. Application of Judicial Review and Presumption of Constitutionality:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of presumption of constitutionality, stating that laws enacted by the legislature are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise. The Court emphasized that judicial review should be exercised with self-restraint, respecting the separation of powers and the democratic process. The Court also discussed the doctrine of severability and the practice of reading down statutes to save them from being declared unconstitutional, provided it does not alter the essence of the law.

4. Misuse of Section 377 IPC and Its Impact on LGBT Rights:
Respondent No.1 argued that Section 377 IPC has been misused to harass, blackmail, and torture LGBT individuals. The Supreme Court acknowledged these concerns but clarified that misuse of a law does not render the law itself unconstitutional. The Court held that such issues should be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary. The Court emphasized that the law's misuse should not be a basis for declaring it unconstitutional, as the law itself does not mandate or condone such treatment.

5. Interpretation of "Carnal Intercourse Against the Order of Nature":
The Supreme Court examined various judicial interpretations of "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and concluded that the acts falling within the ambit of Section 377 IPC can only be determined with reference to the act itself and the circumstances in which it is executed. The Court noted that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular identity or orientation but merely identifies certain acts as offenses. The Court held that the section applies irrespective of age and consent and regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1. The Court held that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity and does not violate Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution. The Court also clarified that the competent legislature is free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting or amending Section 377 IPC.

← Previous Next →