Law4u - Made in India

What did the Supreme Court say about Section 377?

25-Aug-2025
Supreme Court

Answer By law4u team

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code came in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). Key points of the judgment: • Decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relations – The Court struck down the part of Section 377 that criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults in private, holding it violated fundamental rights. • Rights upheld – The Court linked the decision to: – Article 14 – Right to equality – Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination – Article 19 – Freedom of expression – Article 21 – Right to life, dignity, and privacy • Retained for certain acts – Section 377 still applies to non-consensual acts, sex with minors, and bestiality. • Social message – The Court recognised the LGBTQ+ community’s right to equal citizenship, dignity, and protection from discrimination. Since the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the IPC, the old Section 377’s consensual adult part is no longer a criminal offence, but provisions against sexual offences with minors or without consent remain.

Answer By Anik

Dear Client, In 2018, on September 6th, the Supreme Court of India gave a landmark judgment on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the court struck down the relevant sections that criminalised gay sex. Key Points of the Verdict Partial Repeal: The court did not nullify Section 377 in its entirety; instead, what was determined is that the section will not be applied to private and consensual sexual acts between adults. It did, however, still stand for non-consensual acts, sexual acts with minors, and bestiality. Fundamental Rights: The court ruled out Section 377, which, at large, had been used to criminalise consensual gay sex. Also, this was against the principles of equality (Article 14), free speech (Article 19(1)(a), and the rights to life and personal liberty (Article 21) of the individuals. Protection of Identity: The judgment put forth that the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals are included in the constitution, which includes the right to a dignified life. Also, it is brought to notice that the stigma and discrimination the LGBTQ+ community faces are a result of the colonial-era law. I hope this answer helps to resolve your queries. Don’t hesitate to reach out with any further questions. Thank you!

Answer By M.srinivasan

What did the Supreme Court say about Section 377? post by m. srinivasan The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark 2018 judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults. The Court unanimously held that applying Section 377 to adult, consensual, and private sexual acts was unconstitutional, as it violated fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), freedom of expression (Article 19), and life and personal liberty (Article 21). Summary of Supreme Court's Key Rulings Decriminalization of Consensual Acts: Section 377 can no longer be used to criminalize consensual sexual activities between adults in private, regardless of sexual orientation. Upholding Rights: The Court emphasized that every citizen, independent of sexual orientation or gender identity, is guaranteed fundamental rights, and that "constitutional morality" must prevail over "popular morality". Limitations Remain: Section 377 remains in force only for non-consensual sexual acts, acts involving minors, and acts involving animals (bestiality). Right to Dignity and Privacy: The judgment recognized sexual autonomy as part of the right to privacy and dignity, affirming that LGBT individuals cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their identity or choices. Supreme Court’s Rationale The decision called earlier reasoning (such as the "minuscule minority" argument in Suresh Koushal v. Naz Foundation) constitutionally impermissible and recognized that all minorities are entitled to protection against discrimination. The Court stated that consensual intimacy between adults is beyond the State's legitimate interest and not a matter for criminal law. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling on Section 377 was a pathbreaking moment for LGBT rights in India, affirming equality, dignity, and privacy for all consenting adults and removing the colonial-era ban on homosexual acts in private.

Answer By M.srinivasan

What did the Supreme Court say about Section 377? The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark 2018 judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults. The Court unanimously held that applying Section 377 to adult, consensual, and private sexual acts was unconstitutional, as it violated fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), freedom of expression (Article 19), and life and personal liberty (Article 21). Summary of Supreme Court's Key Rulings Decriminalization of Consensual Acts: Section 377 can no longer be used to criminalize consensual sexual activities between adults in private, regardless of sexual orientation. Upholding Rights: The Court emphasized that every citizen, independent of sexual orientation or gender identity, is guaranteed fundamental rights, and that "constitutional morality" must prevail over "popular morality". Limitations Remain: Section 377 remains in force only for non-consensual sexual acts, acts involving minors, and acts involving animals (bestiality). Right to Dignity and Privacy: The judgment recognized sexual autonomy as part of the right to privacy and dignity, affirming that LGBT individuals cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their identity or choices. Supreme Court’s Rationale The decision called earlier reasoning (such as the "minuscule minority" argument in Suresh Koushal v. Naz Foundation) constitutionally impermissible and recognized that all minorities are entitled to protection against discrimination. The Court stated that consensual intimacy between adults is beyond the State's legitimate interest and not a matter for criminal law. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling on Section 377 was a pathbreaking moment for LGBT rights in India, affirming equality, dignity, and privacy for all consenting adults and removing the colonial-era ban on homosexual acts in private.

Supreme Court Verified Advocates

Get expert legal advice instantly.

Advocate Tamanna K Trivedi

Advocate Tamanna K Trivedi

Anticipatory Bail, Breach of Contract, Child Custody, Cheque Bounce, Banking & Finance, Civil, Consumer Court, Court Marriage, Criminal, Cyber Crime, Customs & Central Excise, Corporate, Divorce, Family, Domestic Violence, High Court, Immigration, Insurance, Landlord & Tenant, Labour & Service, Muslim Law, Motor Accident, Trademark & Copyright, Media and Entertainment, Property, Documentation, Arbitration, Medical Negligence, Startup, RERA, Recovery, R.T.I, Succession Certificate, Wills Trusts, NCLT, Patent, Revenue, Tax, Supreme Court, International Law, GST, Armed Forces Tribunal, Bankruptcy & Insolvency

Get Advice
Advocate Pvl Kanta Suhasini

Advocate Pvl Kanta Suhasini

Anticipatory Bail, Arbitration, Bankruptcy & Insolvency, Breach of Contract, Cheque Bounce, Civil, Consumer Court, Criminal, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Family, High Court, Motor Accident, Property, Supreme Court, Wills Trusts

Get Advice
Advocate Salimuddin

Advocate Salimuddin

Anticipatory Bail, Bankruptcy & Insolvency, Banking & Finance, Cheque Bounce, Consumer Court, Cyber Crime, High Court, Muslim Law, Wills Trusts, Breach of Contract, Child Custody, Civil, Customs & Central Excise, Divorce, Court Marriage, Criminal, Domestic Violence, GST, Insurance, Family, Medical Negligence, Motor Accident, Trademark & Copyright, Tax, Supreme Court

Get Advice
Advocate Preeti JD

Advocate Preeti JD

Anticipatory Bail, Child Custody, Civil, Criminal, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Family, High Court, Property, Recovery, Supreme Court

Get Advice
Advocate Jatin Sodhi

Advocate Jatin Sodhi

Anticipatory Bail, Arbitration, Bankruptcy & Insolvency, Banking & Finance, Breach of Contract, Cheque Bounce, Child Custody, Consumer Court, Corporate, Customs & Central Excise, Criminal, Cyber Crime, Divorce, GST, Domestic Violence, High Court, Immigration, Insurance, International Law, Media and Entertainment, Medical Negligence, Motor Accident, Muslim Law, NCLT, Patent, Property, R.T.I, Recovery, RERA, Supreme Court, Tax, Trademark & Copyright, Wills Trusts, Revenue

Get Advice
Advocate Thakur Nischay Singh

Advocate Thakur Nischay Singh

Corporate, Divorce, Domestic Violence, High Court, Immigration, International Law, Medical Negligence, Succession Certificate, Supreme Court, Revenue, Anticipatory Bail, Cyber Crime, Criminal

Get Advice
Advocate Raja Syamala Penmetsa

Advocate Raja Syamala Penmetsa

Civil, Consumer Court, Cheque Bounce, Divorce, Family, Criminal, Domestic Violence, Motor Accident, Medical Negligence, Succession Certificate, Supreme Court, RERA, Wills Trusts, Revenue, High Court, Arbitration, Anticipatory Bail

Get Advice
Advocate Roshan Sahu

Advocate Roshan Sahu

Anticipatory Bail, Arbitration, Armed Forces Tribunal, Bankruptcy & Insolvency, Banking & Finance, Breach of Contract, Cheque Bounce, Child Custody, Civil, Consumer Court, Corporate, Court Marriage, Customs & Central Excise, Criminal, Cyber Crime, Divorce, Documentation, GST, Domestic Violence, Family, High Court, Immigration, Insurance, International Law, Labour & Service, Landlord & Tenant, Media and Entertainment, Medical Negligence, Motor Accident, Muslim Law, NCLT, Patent, Property, R.T.I, Recovery, RERA, Startup, Succession Certificate, Supreme Court, Tax, Trademark & Copyright, Wills Trusts, Revenue

Get Advice
Advocate Jagan

Advocate Jagan

Anticipatory Bail, Civil, Corporate, Criminal, Supreme Court, Cheque Bounce, Family, High Court, Succession Certificate, Motor Accident, Property, Banking & Finance, Armed Forces Tribunal, Arbitration, Breach of Contract

Get Advice
Advocate Rajat Prasad

Advocate Rajat Prasad

Anticipatory Bail, Arbitration, Breach of Contract, Cheque Bounce, Consumer Court, Corporate, Criminal, Cyber Crime, Domestic Violence, High Court, Insurance, Labour & Service, Landlord & Tenant, Media and Entertainment, Medical Negligence, Motor Accident, R.T.I, Startup, Supreme Court, Trademark & Copyright, Documentation, Armed Forces Tribunal, Wills Trusts, Property, Tax, Immigration, Divorce, International Law, Patent, Recovery, Civil, Banking & Finance, GST

Get Advice

Supreme Court Related Questions

Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about Breach of Contract. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.