Abstract
This book considers the Indian Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the legal recognition of homosexuality, same-sex unions and their right to found a family, asking specifically how the needs of LGBTI persons have been met by the Supreme Court. In light of the present situation in India in which the Supreme Court has displayed a conservative attitude in their ruling on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, questions arise relating to the Supreme Court’s consistency in other rulings relating to homosexuality; how the Supreme Court currently perceives homosexuality, same-sex unions and their right to family; the protection it affords sexual minorities and the impact of international human rights laws and the judgments of foreign countries on determining the constitutionality of Indian law. Though the Supreme Court has historically assumed a progressive role—protecting and guaranteeing fundamental rights—the book questions which issues may have influenced the Section 377 ruling. Thus, the central interpretative methods used by the Supreme Court are taken into account.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This acronym refers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex people.
- 2.
Section 377 provides: “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 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 offense described in this section.
- 3.
Hodson, L., “Different Families Same Rights?,” p. 8; Roagna, I., “Protecting the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights,” pp. 9–12.
- 4.
Talcott, P., “Evolutionary universals in society,” American Sociological Review 29/3 (1964), p. 351.
- 5.
Cf. Gutmann, T., L. Siep, B. Jakl and M. Städtler, Eds., “Von der religiösen zur säkularen Begründung staatlicher Normen. Zum Verhältnis von Religion und Politik in der Philosophie der Neuzeit und in rechtssystematischen Fragen der Gegenwart,” Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012.
- 6.
Cf. Gutmann, T., “Religion und Normative Moderne,” in: Ulrich Willems/Detlef Pollack/Thomas Gutmann/Helene Basu/Ulrike Spohn, Eds., Moderne und Religion. Kontroversen um Modernität und Säkularisierung. Bielefeld: Transcript 2013, pp. 447–488; Gutmann, T., “Zur Institutionalisierung der Normativen Moderne,” in: Aulis Aarnio/Thomas Hoeren/Stanley L. Paulson/Martin Schulte and Dieter Wyduckel, Eds: Positivität, Normativität und Institutionalität des Rechts. Festschrift für Werner Krawietz zum 80. Geburtstag. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2013, pp. 471–494; Gutmann, T., “Rechtswissenschaft,” in: Friedrich Jaeger/Wolfgang Knöbl/Ute Schneider, Eds., Handbuch der Moderneforschung. Interdisziplinäre und internationale Perspektiven. Stuttgart/Weimar: B. Metzler’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 2015, pp. 216–230.
- 7.
Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, “Supranational cultural norms, domestic value orientations and the diffusion of same-sex union rights in Europe, 1988–2009,” pp. 102–120.
- 8.
Barker, N., Not the Marrying Kind: A Feminist Critique of Same-Sex Marriage, pp. 51–53; Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, “Supranational cultural norms, domestic value orientations and the diffusion of same-sex union rights in Europe,1988–2009,” p. 107.
- 9.
Carmody, D., and J.T. Carmody, Native American Religions: An Introduction, pp. 136–139, Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, op. cit., p. 107.
- 10.
Frank, D. J., and E.H. Mceneaney, “Individualization of Society and the Liberalization of State Policies on Same-Sex Sexual Relations, 1984–1995,” pp. 103, 108; Crompton R., “Class and Family,” p. 658–677.
- 11.
Abrams, K., “Family History: Inside and Out,” p. 1001; Grossman, J.L., and L. M. Friedman, Inside The Castle: Law And The Family in 20th Century America, p. 331.
- 12.
Ibid., p. 1001.
- 13.
Grossman, J.L., and L.M. Friedman, Inside The Castle: Law And The Family in 20th Century America, pp. 7–8.
- 14.
Abrams, K. op. cit., p. 1005.
- 15.
Ibid., p. 1002.
- 16.
Ibid., p. 1007.
- 17.
Grossman, J.L., and L.M. Friedman, op. cit., p. 9.
- 18.
Ibid., p. 2.
- 19.
Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994).
- 20.
(1995) 2 S.C.R. 418.
- 21.
Frank, D. J., and E.H. Mceneaney, op. cit., pp. 911–944.
- 22.
Ibid., p. 912–915.
- 23.
Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, op. cit., pp. 102–120; Waaldijk, K., “Civil developments: Patterns of reform in the legal position of same-sex partners in Europe,” pp. 62–63.
- 24.
Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, op. cit., p. 102–120; Frank, D. J., and E.H. Mceneaney, op. cit., p. 7.
- 25.
Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, op. cit., p. 103.
- 26.
Ibid. See also Meyer J.W., J. Boli, G.M. Thomas and F.O. Ramirez, “World society and the Nation-State,” pp. 144–181.
- 27.
Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, op. cit., p. 107; see also Lechner, F.J., and J. Boli, “World Culture: Origin and Consequences,” p. 95.
- 28.
Kollman, K., “Same-sex union: The Globalization of an idea,” pp. 338–340.
- 29.
Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, op. cit., p. 106.
- 30.
Ibid., p. 106; see Hafner-Burton, E.M., and K. Tsutsui, “Human Rights in a Globalizing World,” p. 1400.
- 31.
Menyawi, H.E. “The Great Reversal: How Nations in the Muslim World Went from Tolerating Same Sex Practices to Repressing LGB People,” pp. 1–29.
- 32.
Ibid.
- 33.
Ghazali, A.H., Marriage and Sexuality in Islam, p. 38.
- 34.
Murray, S., and W. Roscoe, Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature, p. 309.
- 35.
Martin, S.L., “The Role of Homosexuality in Classical Islam,” (1997), University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects, http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/231 (accessed on March 16, 2015).
- 36.
See also Bauer, T., Die Kultur der Ambiguität, Verlag der Weltreligionen im Insel Verlag, Auflage: 4, 2011.
- 37.
Menyawi, H.E., “The Great Reversal: How Nations in the Muslim World Went from Tolerating Same Sex Practices to Repressing LGB People,” p. 1–3.
- 38.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homundec5.htm (accessed on January 31, 2016).
- 39.
Menyawi, H.E., op. cit.; Lamont, M., Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Class, 1992.
- 40.
Ibid., p. 6.
- 41.
Wilhelm, A.D., Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex: Understanding Homosexuality, pp. 50–51.
- 42.
Manu Smriti, Chapter 8, Verse 370 and 369; see also Wilhelm, A.D., Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex, pp. 267, 334.
- 43.
Manu Smriti, Chapter 11, Verse 68 and 175; see also Wilhelm, A.D., op. cit., In the case of India, according to the Laws of Manu, “A twice born man (brahaman) who commits unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time shall bathe, dressed in his clothes” was rightly reckoned as a petty offence (Greenberg, D., Construction of homosexuality, p. 143).
- 44.
Greenberg, D., Construction of homosexuality, pp. 145, 148, 551.
- 45.
Vanita, R., Queering India: Same-Sex Love and Eroticism in Indian Culture and Society, pp. 15–29.
- 46.
Inglehart, R., and W.E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values,” p. 49; Gerhards, J., “Non-discrimination towards Homosexuality,” p. 19.
- 47.
Kollman, K., “Same-sex Union: The Globalization of an Idea,” pp. 338–340.
- 48.
Dworkin, R., “Three Questions for America,” The New York Review of Books 53, no. 14 (September 21, 2006), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19271 (accessed on February 16, 2015); see also Dworkin, R., Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
- 49.
Franke, K.M., “The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage Politics,” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, pp. 239–240.
- 50.
Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue, p. 324.
- 51.
Ibid., p. 4.
- 52.
Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue, p. 485, footnote 5. Dworkin emphasizes this distinction much more forcefully in Is Democracy Possible Here?
- 53.
Bui, N., “Dworkinian Liberalism & Gay Rights: A Defense of Same-Sex Relations,” p. 54–55.
- 54.
Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue, p. 19.
- 55.
Fernández, J. J., and M. Lutter, op. cit., p. 112.
- 56.
United Nations Human Rights Committee, Report of the Human Rights Committee, Communication No.488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C50/D/488 (4 April 1994) (‘Toonen’).
- 57.
Roes v. U.K (1987) 9 EHRR 56; Cossey v. U.K (1991) 13 EHRR 622; Sheffield and Horsham v. U.K (1999) 27 EHRR 163.
- 58.
Schauer, F., and W. Sinnott-Armstrong, Ed., The Philosophy of Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings with Commentary, p. 80–81.
- 59.
Ibid., p. 82.
- 60.
Ibid., p. 75.
- 61.
Dworkin, R., Judicial Discretion, p. 635.
- 62.
Murphy, J. G., and J. L. Coleman, Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Jurisprudence, p. 40.
- 63.
Tripathi, G.P., Indian Constitution, p. 242, 271; see also Article 124 (1–7) and Article 217 of the Indian Constitution.
- 64.
Robertson, A.H., The Law of International Institution in Europe, pp. 52–53; Kapoor, S.K., International Law and Human Rights, pp. 806–807.
- 65.
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Discrimination/A.HRC.19.41_English.pdf (accessed on March 25, 2015).
- 66.
Report on guidelines to promote and protect the enjoyment of all human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg, 24 June 2013. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/foraff/137584.pdf (accessed on March 25, 2015).
- 67.
Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Europe, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, June 2011, p. 52; Homophobia, Transphobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States: Summary of Findings, Trends, Challenges and Promising Practices, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Vienna, 2011, p. 13; Kuhar, R., and A. Svab, “The Unbearable Comfort of Privacy: Everyday Life of Gays and Lesbians,” p. 153.
- 68.
An Activist’s Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles, 2010: www.yogyakartaprinciples.org (accessed on March 25, 2015). For human rights defenders, see also Gross, A.M., “Sex, Love, and Marriage: Questioning Gender and Sexuality Rights in International Law,” pp. 235–253.
- 69.
Vanita, R., Love’s Rite: Same-Sex Marriage in India and the West, p. 183.
- 70.
Joseph, S., Social Work Practice and Men Who Have Sex With Men, pp. 1–51; Seabrook, J., Love in a Different Climate, pp. 4–16.
- 71.
Khan, S., “Culture, Sexualities, and Identities: Men Who Have Sex with Men in India,” pp. 99–115; Nivedita Menon (ed.), Sexualities, pp. 3–50.
- 72.
Ibid.
- 73.
Narrain, A., and Gupta, A. Eds., Law Like Love: Queer Perspectives on Law in India, pp. 25–42.
- 74.
Homophobia, Transphobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States: Summary of Findings, Trends, Challenges and Promising Practices, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Vienna, 2011, p. 13; Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region – Incidents and Responses, Annual Report for 2009, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Warsaw, November 2010.
- 75.
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Discrimination/A.HRC.19.41_English.pdf (accessed on March 25, 2015); Homophobia, Transphobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States: Summary of Findings, Trends, Challenges and Promising Practices, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Vienna, 2011, p. 13.
- 76.
Ibid.
- 77.
Ibid., see also Smith & Grady v UK, 25 July 2000, 31 EHRR 24.
- 78.
The social situation concerning homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in Germany, Danish Institute for Human Rights, March 2009, pp. 1–15; Frohn, D., and P. Stärke, “The situation concerning homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in Germany,” Sociological Country Report, 2008.
- 79.
LSVD Report, Human Rights Committee,106th session, 15 October to 2 November 2012, pp. 1–4, http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-Dateien/Pakte_Konventionen/ICCPR/iccpr_state_report_germany_6_2010_list_of_issues__replies_2012_en.pdf (accessed on March 25, 2015).
- 80.
Quote for the German discussion: Nina Dethloff, Ehe für alle, FamRZ 2016, 351–354; Anne Röthel, Öffnung der Ehe – wenn ja: wie? FamRZ 2015, 1241–1242.
- 81.
Hodson, L., “Different Families Same Rights?,” p. 8; Roagna, I., “Protecting the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life under the European Convention on Human Rights,” pp. 9–12.
- 82.
Report http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/foraff/.pdf (accessed on March 25, 2015).
- 83.
Sabharwal, Y.K., “Human Rights and International Law,” Speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee Celebrations and Law Lecture in memory of late Dr. Rajendra Jain, dt. 11.4.2006, Jabalpur, http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2006/MP.pdf (accessed on March 25, 2015).
- 84.
NAZ Foundation v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.10972 of 2013.
- 85.
NAZ Foundation v. Union, 160 Delhi Law Times 277.
- 86.
Ibid.
- 87.
Tejas is an advocate at the High Court of Gujarat and a guest lecturer at the Gujarat National Law University. Neeraj is a practicing lawyer based in Bangalore and a guest lecturer at the Tamil Nadu National Law School.
- 88.
Tejas RK Motwani & Neeraj Grover; Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/will-the-curative-be-the-cure/ (accessed on February 8, 2016).
- 89.
Ramachandran, R., “The Sentinel Who Will Not Protect,” Journal of Indian Law and Society, Kolkata, Issue December 2013, pp. 1–4, https://jilsblognujs.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/the-sentinel-who-will-not-protect (accessed on November 14, 2015).
- 90.
Ibid.
- 91.
Right to marry is a part and parcel of right to life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution, see Lata singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 2522.
- 92.
Magoo, I.K., Law relating to sexual offences and Homosexuality in India, pp. 306–312; John, T., “Liberating Marriage,” in eds Law like Love, Gupta, A., and A. Narain, pp. 355–365; Malik, N.S., “Legalisation of Homosexual Marriages in India: Challenges and Possibilities,” Periodic Research, Vol. II Issue-I, pp. 119–125.
- 93.
Ravichandran, N., “Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in India,” Journal of Indian Law and Society, pp. 96–109.
- 94.
Equality before law.
- 95.
Protection from discrimination.
- 96.
Freedom of speech and expression.
- 97.
Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 2522 (live-in relationship case).
- 98.
NALSA v. Union, SC 2013; see also http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wc40012.pdf (accessed on March 25, 2015).
- 99.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC).
- 100.
If any illustration is required of this approach of the Indian Judiciary, reference can be readily made to the cases of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 and T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606.
- 101.
Subodh Ghildiyal, “Bill ensures family life for transgender children,” TNN December 30, 2015, 05.41 A.M IST, http://socialjustice.nic.in/pdf/TGBillFinal.pdf (accessed on February 8, 2016).
- 102.
Tiwana, M., “Needed: More Effective Human Rights Commissions in India, Access to Justice Program,” pp. 1–5; Agarwal, H.O., International Law and Human Rights, pp. 485–493.
- 103.
Kapoor, S.K., International Law and Human Rights, pp. 958–962.
- 104.
Ibid.
- 105.
Also it can include the terms ‘registered partnership’, ‘civil union’ and ‘civil partnership’.
- 106.
Soergjerd, C. Reconstructing Marriage: The Legal Status of Relationships in a Changing Society, p. 14.
- 107.
Peczenik, A. “Scienta Juris, Legal Doctrine as Knowledge of Law and as a Source of Law,” in Enrico Pattaro Ed. A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, pp. 4, 11.
- 108.
Ibid.
- 109.
Pechzenik, A., op. cit., p. 4.
- 110.
Mahajan, V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, pp. 625–632; Dias, R.W.M., Jurisprudence, pp. 425–427.
- 111.
NAZ Foundation, Del. HC 2009; NAZ Foundation v. Union, SC 2013; and NALSA v. Union, SC 2013.
- 112.
Kapoor, S.K., International Law and Human Rights, pp. 826–832.
- 113.
Public Interest Litigation has rendered a signal service in the areas of Prisoner’s Rights, Development of compensatory jurisprudence for Human Rights violation, Environmental protection, Bonded labour eradication and Prohibition of Child Labour and many others. See also Chandanmal Chopra v. State of West Bengal AIR 1986 Cal 104; Oddessey Lok Vidyayana Sanghatan v. Union of India (1988) I SCC 168; Common Cause v. union of India (1996) 2 SCC 752; D. Satyanarayana v. N.T. Rama Rao AIR (1988) AP 144; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (1995) (supp) 3 SCC 382; Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 558; Vineet Narayan v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 199 18; All India judges association v. Union of India AIR (1992) SC 165.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Naik, Y. (2017). Introduction. In: Homosexuality in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55434-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55435-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)