RAS question
In the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) case, the Supreme Court:
Correct answer: (C) Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 IPC.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court read down Section 377 IPC to decriminalise consensual sexual acts between adults in private.
Explanation
Navtej Singh Johar was not a general ruling on marriage or a wholesale repeal of Section 377 IPC. A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that Section 377 could not criminalise consensual sexual acts between adults in private, because doing so violated the constitutional guarantees identified in the question: equality, non-discrimination, free expression, privacy, dignity and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21. The Supreme Court's judgment confirms the limited nature of the holding: Section 377 was read down only to remove penal liability for consensual adult same-sex conduct in private, while the provision continued to apply to non-consensual sexual acts, acts involving minors and bestiality. That is why the legally precise answer is decriminalisation by reading down, not legalisation of marriage or complete striking down.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) The case dealt with criminal liability under Section 377 IPC, not the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
- (B) The Court did not uphold Section 377 in its existing form; it read the provision down where it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults in private.
- (D) The Court did not strike down Section 377 entirely, because the provision continued to cover non-consensual acts, acts involving minors and bestiality.
Concept
This tests the constitutional-law theme of judicial review of penal provisions against fundamental rights. It recurs in RAS because Navtej Singh Johar links Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 with privacy, dignity, equality and the limits of criminal law.