In the judgement on privacy as a fundamental right, the apex court's nine-judge bench had said the right to privacy can not be denied to members of the LGBT community merely because they have unconventional sexual orientation and form a miniscule fraction of the over 1.32 billion Indian population.
"We really expect that when this (law) is struck down, we will get equal rights and a better way to live our life, with dignity". "Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination", the nine-judge bench had said.
A British-era law that makes homosexuality a crime will be up for re-examination today by the Supreme Court, which pointed out seven months ago that "social morality changes from age to age".
The Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra said that if proceedings are streamed live, it would help the litigant instantly.
In 2013, the apex court had quashed Delhi High Court's 2009 judgment that declared the law unconstitutional.Читайте также: These are the semi-final matchups at the FIFA World Cup (SCHEDULE)
The apex court chose to hear the plea against the Section 377 after IIT's LGBT alumni associate filed it in May. "The law copes with life and accordingly change takes place", the apex court observed.
The first one, a curative petition challenging the December 2013 verdict of the apex court, filed by NGO Naz Foundation is still pending in the court.
According to reports, Jaising said that citizens have the right to information on matters of constitutional and national importance.
There are two batches of pleas challenging gay sex that are pending in the top court.
"Section 377 of the IPC criminalises a core part of a person's identity exclusively on account of his or her sexuality and thus violates Article 21 of the Constitution". "There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be altered by any treatment and that such attempts may, in fact, lead to low self-esteem and stigmatisation of the person", read the statement. The high court had stated that Section 377 was in violation of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution. The court ruled privacy was a fundamental right of all Indians, adding that sexual orientation was an essential attribute of privacy.
"Right to choose my partner is part of my fundamental right to privacy", Datar had submitted.При любом использовании материалов сайта и дочерних проектов, гиперссылка на обязательна.
«» 2007 - 2019 Copyright.
Автоматизированное извлечение информации сайта запрещено.
Код для вставки в блог