Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
(2018) 10 SCC 1 · 5-judge bench (unanimous)
Challenged Section 377 of the old IPC, which criminalised "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" — historically used to criminalise consensual same-sex relations between adults.
A unanimous bench struck down Section 377 to the extent it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults, holding this violated dignity, privacy, and equality — while the non-consent-based parts of the old provision remained valid.
Ended over 150 years of criminalisation of consensual same-sex relationships in India — though, as Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) later clarified, this decriminalisation didn't extend to marriage recognition, which the Court left to Parliament.
Related law
The dignity and privacy right this decriminalisation was grounded in
Keep exploring
NALSA v. Union of India
The direct legal foundation for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 — before this, transgender persons had no clear legal identity recognition at all in India.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
This is the constitutional foundation later relied on in the decriminalisation of homosexuality (Navtej Johar) and the transgender self-identification ruling (NALSA had already touched on dignity, but Puttaswamy made privacy itself explicit) — one ruling that reshaped multiple areas of personal-autonomy law.
This is a plain-English summary, not verbatim judgment text. Adhikar is an independent citizen-awareness platform, not a Government of India website. Always verify against the full judgment (indiankanoon.org, sci.gov.in) or a qualified advocate before relying on this for an actual legal situation.