Question Description
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalised consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex for being “against the order of nature”. In 2009, before the Delhi High Court, the Naz Foundation (India) Trust (“Naz”) challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 for violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that punishing sexual activity between two consenting adults under Section 377 violates the right to equality, privacy and personal liberty of such persons.This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court and in 2013, the Court reversed the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. (“Koushal”). It held that only the Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality.Five individuals from the LGBTQ communities (Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia, Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehra) filed a new writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.The Decision in ‘Koushal’All five judges overruled Koushal. The Court drew on the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights to hold that rights should not be revoked. The march of a progressive society should only be forward.The Court also noted the guarantee of a fundamental right to privacy in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) vs Union Of India and held that Koushal’s finding that Section 377 affected only a ‘miniscule minority’ cannot be the basis to deny the right to privacy. It observed that minorities face discrimination because their views and beliefs do not align with the majority and the Koushal decision violated the right of all persons to equal protection.The Litmus Test for Survival of Section 377The Supreme Court tested the constitutionality of Section 377 against the principles of equality, liberty, dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The Court observed that Section 377 arbitrarily punishes individuals who engage in same sex relationships. To substantiate this, the Court noted that Section 377 classifies and punishes individuals who engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature to protect women and children. However, this objective has no reasonable nexus with the classification, as unnatural offences have also been separately penalised under Section 375 and the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unequal treatment of LGBT individuals violates Article 14. Further, the Court held that Section 377 is manifestly arbitrary as it does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts between adults. It targeted people exercising certain choices and treated them as “less than humans” and encouraged prejudices and stereotypes accompanied by debilitating social effects. This violates Article 14, which is the very basis of non-discrimination. Freedom of Expression: The Court acknowledged that all persons, including LGBTQI individuals, had the right to express their choices without any fear. It recognized same-sex sexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In particular, the Court noted that Section 377 stigmatises and discriminates against transgender persons. Next, the Court tested whether public order, decency and morality are reasonable grounds to restrict the right to freedom of expression of sexuality under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that Section 377 criminalises private consensual acts which neither disturb public order, nor injure public decency or morality. Sexual acts cannot be viewed solely from the lens of morality where they are seen to be purely for procreation. An unreasonable restriction on acts within a person’s private space will have a chilling effect on freedom of choice. For these reasons, the Court held that Section 377 is disproportionate and violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that Section 377 violates human dignity, decisional automony and the fundamental right to privacy. Every individual has the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship and exercise it within their private space. As Section 377 inhibits the exercise of personal liberty to engage in voluntary sexual acts, it violates Article 21. It socially ostracises LGBT persons and does not permit full realisation of their personhood. Denying the right to determine one’s sexual orientation curtails the right to privacy of an individual. Therefore, the Court held that the scope of the right to privacy must be widened to incorporate and protect ‘sexual privacy’.Q.A new rule banning consensual intercourse between people of the same sex is passed by the Indian Parliament. The law is being contested before the Indian Supreme Court. Which of the following best sums up the Courts probable justification for invalidating the law?a)The Court will sustain the law since it is within the scope of the legislative authority of the Parliament.b)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 14 of the Constitutions fundamental rights to equality and nondiscrimination.c)The statute will be overturned by the court because it infringes on Article 21 of the Constitutions fundamental right to privacy.d)The law will be overturned by the Court because it infringes on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitutions fundamental right to freedom of expression.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.