India: Supreme Court

insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15,19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion.

6 September 2018 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Constitutional law - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Sexual and reproductive rights | Countries: India

15 April 2014 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: India

11 December 2013 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: India

5 July 2011 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) - Police | Countries: India

19 April 2011 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Harmful traditional practices - Honour killings | Countries: India

5 December 2006 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law | Countries: India

9 January 1996 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Chakma - Denial of nationality - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Human rights and fundamental freedoms | Countries: Bangladesh - India

We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers contains rights on every humanbeing and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons, e.g., the AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do so. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhibited by local politics. Besides, by refusing to forward their applications, the Chakmas are denied rights, Constitutional and statutory, to be considered for being registered as citizens of India.

9 January 1996 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Chakma - Citizenship / Nationality law - Constitutional law - Right to life - Rights of non-citizens - State protection | Countries: Bangladesh - India

27 April 1993 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Chakma - Denial of nationality - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Resettlement | Countries: Bangladesh - India