Les lois anti-sodomie, héritage du colonialisme britannique, demeurent encore très répandues dans les pays du Commonwealth, (A) ; néanmoins, étant donné l’influence que la Cour suprême indienne, à la suite de la cour constitutionnelle sud-africaine, exerce sur ses homologues du Commonwealth, la portée de cette décision est potentiellement considérable (B). 

Le 6 septembre 2018, la Cour suprême indienne a censuré l’article 377 du Code Pénal indien, en vertu duquel « Quiconque a de son propre gré un rapport charnel contre-nature avec un homme, une femme ou un animal sera puni de prison à vie, ou d'une peine d'emprisonnement dont la durée peut aller jusqu'à dix ans, et sera aussi susceptible de recevoir une amende ».

Shraddha Chaudhary

The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court), in Navtej Johar v. Union of India, (Navtej Johar) decriminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, insofar as private acts of consenting adults were concerned. In declaring this aspect of S. 377, Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional, the Supreme Court corrected the grave injustice perpetrated by the division bench in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation in 2013.

Vanshaj Jain

The content of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to equality, has been subject to much debate over the years. However the decision in Navtej Johar v. Union of India will play a decisive role in determining the interpretation to be accorded to this provision, as it substantially enhances the reach of Article 14 by affirming the ‘manifest arbitrariness’ test.  

Akshat Agarwal

The Supreme Court of India’s (Supreme Court) decriminalisation of same-sex relationships in Navtej Johar v. Union of India (Navtej Johar) was a culmination of the almost two-decade long, bruising legal struggle for LGBT+ rights in India, which saw the earliest petitions being filed in 2001 and decriminalisation by the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation in 2009, followed by the Supreme Courts’s re-criminalisation in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation in 2013

Aradhya Sethia

Section 377, first enacted in 1860 in British India, was later exported to several erstwhile British colonies. “377” has become a symbol of anti-sodomy laws across Commonwealth countries. The provision has survived in India, like many other jurisdictions, despite anti-colonial movements and a subsequent constitutional democracy. As Douglas Sanders argues, this provision epitomizes, in many ways, the “afterlife of British colonialism in Asia.”

GUEST EDITOR | Aradhya Sethia

On 6 September 2018, in Navtej Johar v. Union of India, a five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” The Court unanimously declared that criminalization of any consensual sexual relationship between two adults violates the rights to equality, freedom of expression, and privacy. The decision makes momentous advances in Indian fundamental rights jurisprudence, which will be of significant interest to comparative constitutional law scholars.