India
UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
- Amnesty International - India
- Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
- BBC News - Special Report: Kashmir Flashpoint
- Council of Europe, Venice Commission: Constitutional Courts (Links)
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - India
- Human Rights Watch (HRW) - India
- Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) - India
- International Committee of the Red Cross - The ICRC regional delegation in New Delhi
- International Crisis Group (ICG) - Kashmir
- Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) - India
- KHOJ India Directory
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - India
- ReliefWeb - India
- UNHCR - India
- United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - India
- United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
- United States Department of State - India
- United States Department of State: Congressional Research Service Reports (CRS) and Issue Briefs
- World Food Programme (WFP) - India
- World Health Organization (WHO) - India
|
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. (Petitioner(s))
VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Respondent(s))
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 | Topic(s): Constitutional law - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Sexual and reproductive rights | Countries: India |
|
National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr
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 | Topic(s): Chakma - Citizenship / Nationality law - Constitutional law - Right to life - Rights of non-citizens - State protection | Countries: Bangladesh - India |
