Rights of the LGBTQ Community

Abstract:

The recognition of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) rights has emerged as a pivotal aspect of human rights discourse in the 21st century. In India, the constitutional framework guaranteeing equality, dignity, and personal liberty has provided fertile ground for the judiciary to expand protections for sexual minorities. From Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi to Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Indian legal system has witnessed a dynamic evolution toward inclusivity. Yet, beyond decriminalization, the community continues to face systemic legal and societal barriers particularly in marriage, adoption, and anti-discrimination enforcement. This article explores the constitutional, statutory, and international dimensions of LGBTQ rights, analyzing the progress achieved and the challenges that remain in realizing true equality.

Introduction:

The struggle for LGBTQ rights represents one of the most profound civil rights movements of modern India. For decades, members of this community lived under the shadow of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” Though originally enacted during colonial rule, the provision survived well into independent India, symbolizing deep-rooted social prejudice. The Indian judiciary, through progressive interpretation of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, has gradually dismantled this legal stigma.

In 2018, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, affirming that “constitutional morality” must prevail over “social morality.” However, despite this historic step, the LGBTQ community continues to face legal invisibility in areas such as marriage, adoption, inheritance, and anti-discrimination protections. This paper examines the trajectory of LGBTQ rights in India and identifies the remaining gaps between constitutional ideals and legal realities.

I. The Constitutional Foundation of LGBTQ Rights:

• Article 14 – Equality Before Law:

This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. In Navtej Singh Johar, the Supreme Court held that Section 377 violated Article 14 by creating an arbitrary distinction between consensual sexual acts based on the gender of participants. Justice Chandrachud observed that equality cannot be conditional upon conformity to social norms, thereby extending the scope of Article 14 to protect sexual minorities from majoritarian bias.

• Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination:

Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.  In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 (“NALSA”) case the Supreme Court recognized that “sex” under Article 15 includes “gender identity.” The Court directed the State to grant legal recognition to transgender persons as the “third gender,” affirming their entitlement to the same constitutional rights as any other citizen. This judgment marked the first comprehensive judicial acknowledgment of gender diversity in India’s constitutional jurisprudence.

• Article 19 and 21 – Freedom and Dignity:

The right to express one’s sexual orientation and identity is intrinsically linked to Articles 19 and 21. The Supreme Court, in Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, holding that sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy and personal autonomy. Building on this, Navtej Johar further declared that sexual orientation is integral to an individual’s dignity and self-worth. The Court underscored that the Constitution protects the right to love and to choose one’s partner irrespective of gender.

II. Judicial Milestones in the LGBTQ Rights Movement:

• Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi, 160 DLT 277 (Del HC 2009):

In Naz Foundation, the Delhi High Court struck down Section 377 in part, holding that it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21. The Court observed that criminalizing consensual same-sex acts between adults perpetuated stigma and denied the LGBTQ community basic human rights. Although the Supreme Court reversed this decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1, Naz Foundation laid the intellectual groundwork for later victories.

• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (“NALSA”), (2014) 5 SCC 438:

This case expanded constitutional protection to transgender persons, holding that self-identification of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and dignity. The Court directed the central and state governments to provide legal recognition, reservations, and welfare measures for transgender individuals.

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1:

The nine-judge bench recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right and explicitly affirmed that sexual orientation is part of privacy. This decision provided the jurisprudential basis for striking down Section 377 in Navtej Johar.

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1:

In this watershed case, the Supreme Court unanimously read down Section 377, declaring that consensual same-sex relationships are protected under the Constitution. Justice Indu Malhotra’s observation that “history owes an apology to the members of this community” remains a moral and judicial acknowledgment of decades of state-inflicted harm.

III. Beyond Decriminalization: The Road Ahead

• Marriage Equality and Family Rights:

While decriminalization marked a crucial victory, it did not grant civil rights to LGBTQ persons in marriage, adoption, or inheritance. In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1401, the Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriage, citing separation of powers and legislative prerogative. However, the Court affirmed the need for a framework protecting queer relationships under existing civil laws and emphasized that the State must ensure non-discrimination in the distribution of rights and benefits.

• Employment and Anti-Discrimination Protections:

Despite the NALSA and Navtej Johar decisions, workplace discrimination remains pervasive. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, though enacted with progressive intent, has been criticized for bureaucratic hurdles in gender recognition and weak enforcement mechanisms. The absence of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law continues to undermine constitutional promises of equality and dignity.

• Social and Institutional Acceptance:

Law alone cannot dismantle entrenched prejudice. LGBTQ individuals continue to face ostracism, violence, and family rejection. Educational curricula, public awareness programs, and affirmative social policies are necessary to translate legal recognition into lived equality. The judiciary has repeatedly stressed that constitutional morality must supersede social morality yet societal acceptance remains the slowest frontier.

IV. International Human Rights Framework:

India’s constitutional jurisprudence aligns with international human rights norms under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Yogyakarta Principles (2006) further articulate the application of international human rights law to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Globally, jurisdictions such as South Africa (National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice, 1998 (12) BCLR 1517 (CC)) and the United States (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)) have recognized marriage equality as an extension of constitutional guarantees of dignity and liberty. These developments underscore the universality of equality and reinforce India’s constitutional commitment under Article 51(c) to respect international law.

According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC, 2023), over 70% of LGBTQ respondents reported facing workplace discrimination, and only 13% reported acceptance from their families. A 2024 report by the Centre for Policy Research notes that fewer than 2% of transgender persons have successfully obtained gender certificates under the 2019 Act. These figures reveal a persistent implementation gap between judicial pronouncements and social practice.

Conclusion:

The recognition of LGBTQ rights in India has evolved from criminalization to constitutional affirmation. However, true equality requires more than judicial declarations-it demands legislative reform, social inclusion, and administrative commitment. The principles of dignity, autonomy, and non-discrimination must guide India’s continuing evolution toward a more inclusive democracy. The Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality remains incomplete until it embraces all identities, orientations, and expressions within its moral and legal framework.

References:

1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
2. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
4. Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi, 160 DLT 277 (Del HC 2009).
5. Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1401.
6. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
7. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice, 1998 (12) BCLR 1517 (CC).
8. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
10. Yogyakarta Principles, 2006.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India