Recently the Pride Month has ended. Across the world, people consider June month as a 'Month'. By considering this month as a pride month, we resoulte this month to the LGBTQ community people's struggle. Struggle against the discrimination and social ostracization. In the many parts of the world including India, many enterprises and events have been organised to cohort the gays, lesbian, bio-sexual, and transgender people.

Also these events and enterprises are being held all over the world to make everyone aware of the rights of the LGBTQ community. But if we look with a wider vision we will find that this pride month celebration also signifies another aspect and that is LGBTQ marginalisation from the society. Sexuality has always been considered as a challenging issue in present times. In the 21st century, where society considers itself as liberal in nature, it fails to some extent in considering the legal rights of the homesexuals, lesbains, and transgenders.

It is broadly recognized that sex and sexual oriented minorities experience social and political underestimation in many social orders. The degree of this is a profound factor, contrasting across nations, states and international areas. It is subject to relevant laws, legislative issues and social equalities.

Such underestimation brings about types of separation like mental and actual maltreatment, rape, misuse, disregarding, constrained hetero marriage and transformation treatment. This can prompt social and political seclusion and a higher predominance of psychological well-being issues. Having legitimate rights and insurance doesn't really convert into practicing those rights, so segregation might be available where sexual orientation and sex minorities have lawful security from separation.

History Of Sexual Minorities People

Albeit the LGBT group and people remain focused on disdain, viciousness, and reaction all through the world, the hard work of activists and partners made it conceivable to arrive at this period, where the culprits of brutality, not the people in question (LGBTQ), are denounced as debilitated.

Social developments, coordinating on all sides of the world acknowledgment and privileges of people who may today be distinguished as LGBT or eccentric, started as reactions to hundreds of years of oppression by the chapel, state, and clinical specialists. Where gay movement or aberrance from setting up sexual orientation jobs/dress was prohibited by law or conventional custom, such judgment may be conveyed through shocking public preliminaries, oust, clinical alerts, and language from the platform. These ways of oppression settled in homophobia for quite a long time yet additionally made whole populaces aware of the presence of distinction.

Regardless of whether an individual remembered they, as well, shared this character and were in danger, or set out to stand up for resistance and change, there were not many associations or assets before the logical and political transformations of the eighteenth and nineteenth hundreds of years. Steadily, the development of a public media and beliefs of common liberties drew together activists from varying backgrounds, who drew boldness from thoughtful clinical investigations, prohibited writing, arising sex research, and an environment of more prominent popular government.

By the twentieth century, a development in acknowledgment of gays and lesbians was in progress, abetted by the social environment of women's liberation and new anthropologies of distinction. Nonetheless, all through 150 years of gay social developments (generally from the 1870s to the present time), pioneers and coordinators battled to address the different concerns and character issues of gay men, ladies recognizing as lesbians, and others distinguishing as sex variation or nonbinary.

We know that homosexuality existed in old Israel essentially on the grounds that it is disallowed in the Bible, though it thrived between the men and women in Ancient Greece. The quiet blossoming of early trans or bisexual acknowledgment in various native human advancements met with resistance from European and Christian colonizers.

The European forces authorized their own criminal codes against what was called homosexuality in the New World:
The primary known instance of gay action getting a capital punishment in North America happened in 1566, when the Spanish executed a Frenchman in Florida.

Against the arising setting of public force and Christian confidence, what may have been found out about same-sex love or sexual orientation personality was covered in embarrassment. Incidentally, both wartime struggle between rising countries and the takeoff or passings of male warriors abandoned ladies to live respectively and encouraged solid partnerships between men also. Same-sex friendship flourished where it was disliked for unmarried, random guys and females to blend or mingle openly.

In Western history, we find negligible legitimate examination of what was along these lines called homosexuality before the nineteenth century, past clinical works perceiving women with enormous clitorises as tribades and outrageous control codes for male gay shows. Early undertakings to fathom the extent of human sexual directness came from European subject matter experts and scientists including Carl von Westphal (1869), Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1882) and Havelock Ellis (1897). Their arrangements were insightful to the possibility of a gay or physically open heading happening ordinarily in a conspicuous piece of mankind, nonetheless crafted by Krafft-Ebing and Ellis in like manner named a "third sex" degenerate and strange.

In the United States, there were not many endeavors to make backing bunches supporting gay and lesbian connections until after World War II. In any case, it would not be until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association dispensed with homosexuality as an "disorder" portrayal in its suggestive manual. All through the 1950s and 1960s, gay men and lesbians continued being in peril for mental lockup similarly as jail, losing positions, or possibly kid authority when courts and focuses portrayed gay love as weakened, criminal or disgusting.

The gay freedom development of the 1970s saw heap political associations spring up, frequently at chances with each other. Baffled with the male administration of most gay freedom gatherings, lesbians impacted by the women's activist development of the 1970s shaped their own cooperatives, record marks, performances, papers, book shops, and distributing houses, and called for lesbian rights in standard women's activist gatherings like the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Social affairs, for example, ladies' music shows, book shop readings and lesbian celebrations past the United States were phenomenally effective in getting sorted out ladies to become activists; the women's activist development against abusive behavior at home likewise helped ladies to leave oppressive relationships, while holding guardianship of kids turned into a foremost issue for lesbian moms.

Is Homosexuality a crime?

Homosexuality has its underlying foundations in antiquated history of India. A reading material from old India named Rigveda dated back 1500 BC and numerous models have portrayed and discussed sexual demonstrations between women. Likewise this disclosure shows that there was a female world. Additionally the homosexuality in the tantric standards demonstrates that the there was same-sex connections.

Nevertheless the equivalent sex connections began losing its importance on the appearances of the vedic Brahmanism and later on of British expansionism. Indeed, even the writings like Manusmriti, there are arrangements of discipline as loss of station, substantial money related fine, and strokes of whip for the gays and lesbian conduct.

It is referenced that assuming the lady is hitched, all things considered, discipline is shaving the lady uncovered, cutting two fingers and afterward a visit on jackass. In the 21st century before 2018, the situations were that there is no express notice of homosexuality in any of the rule book of India. An individual was not responsible for being sexual yet can be arraigned for the demonstration of homosexuality. Likewise till 2018 there was arrangement which discussed the criminalisation of the equivalent sex under segment 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860.

This 377 segment of IPC peruses:

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

The wrongdoing under this part was a non-bailable and cognizable offense. In any case, what is this non-bailable and cognisable offense suggested?
This section constructed on the exceptionally old confusion that sodomy and homosexuality is very much the same thing. Man was being portrayed as a type of person who can only do intercourse with his partners. Here the only act of intercourse held the significance, the emotions, fantasies, desires were taken for granted and not given due consideration.

Along these lines, de jure, it is an endeavor to condemn sodomy while de facto it is an endeavor to condemn and vilify homosexuality. Henceforth ordinarily homosexuality was purchased as an offense under the IPC under section 377. This section raises serious questions due to some words which are being given in the definition such as what is natural? What is the order of nature? Indeed on the off chance that one accepts that the 'request for nature' is penile-vaginal intercourse between a man and lady, Sec 377 remaining parts equivocal about which sexual demonstrations it tries to endorse.

For reasons unknown, homosexuality among guys and male and female and savagery has been considered 'carnal intercourse' against the request for nature. However there are no revealed decisions of the High Courts or the Supreme Court proclaiming that cunnilingus or fellatio would be considered an offense culpable under Sec. 377 of IPC. Although this section do not constitute any differences between sodomy between males and males and females, but this section has targeted always men more than women.

Hetero couples occupied with homosexuality had been likewise prosecuted under this part. Marriage is taken as a suggested assent by the spouse for 'ordinary' intercourse and not anal intercourse. On the off chance that the spouse assented, both are blameworthy. on the off chance that she didn't, the only spouse is liable. Under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1855 and Sec, 11 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 a spouse can apply for divorce if the husband has been liable of homosexuality/brutishness. This clearly shows the violation of fundamental rights. This is the gross violation of morality and right to privacy which is enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution as a fundamental right.

The Journey of Decriminalisation of section 377

87 years after the law was made, India acquired her freedom from a frontier past. However, Macaulay's heritage - the offense under Section 377 of the Penal Code - has kept on existing for almost 68 years after we gave ourselves a liberal Constitution. Gays and lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals keep on being denied a genuinely equivalent citizenship seventy years after Freedom. The law has forced upon them a profound quality which is an erroneous anachronism.

The Indian Constitution expresses that 'there will be no discrimination on the premise of the sex of an individual' which is a Fundamental Right of the residents. 'The term 'sex' despite the fact that alludes to the organic sex of an individual as male or female, is wide enough to incorporate sexual direction additionally in the current setting.

Section 377 of the IPC classified consensual sexual intercourse between same-sex as unnatural offence and against the order of the nature. And for which there was a provision of punishment for upto 10 years of imprisonment. This lucidly shows the centuries back old misconception pertaining to sex between adults which survived till the 21st century.

In 2009 Naz Foundation (India) Trust challenged the constitutionality of Article 377 under Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 under the steady gaze of the Delhi High Court. The Foundation fought that Section 377 mirrors an outdated comprehension of the reason for sex, in particular as method for reproduction, and is not welcome in an advanced society.

Further, the police had weaponized the arrangement, which obstructed endeavors pointed toward forestalling the spread of HIV/AIDS. The Foundation refered to an occurrence in 2001 in Lucknow where HIV anticipation laborers, who were appropriating condoms to gay men, were captured on the claim that they were plotting to submit an offense. The Naz Foundation additionally contended that the arrangement was being abused to rebuff consensual sex acts that are not peno-vaginal. This case was the first stone in the journey of decriminalisation of section 377 and in upholding the rights of the sexual minorities.

The Delhi High Court concluded that the section 377 cannot be used to punish two consenting adults for sex as this violates the basic fundamental rights of privacy under Article 21 of the constitution. The Honourable Delhi High Court also held that categorizing people on the basis of sex vilaotes another basic fundamental right i.e Article 14 of the constitution. After this judgment many curative petitions filed against this ruling. In the petitions many organizations argued the right to privacy does not give privilege to commit any offense. Also many of them argued that decriminalisation of section 377 would be a catastrophe for the institution like marriage and this will persuade the young mind towards homosexuality.

In 2013 the Supreme Court while hearing Suresh kaushal case, overturned the 2009 Delhi High Court judgment that decriminalized the section 377 and criminalised homosexuality once again. The ratio decidendi behind the Honourable Supreme Court was that the the power and authority to decriminalize the homosexuality lies with the parliament not with the courts of India. Further the honourable court said that in 150 years of the time span only 200 people had been prosecuted under section 377. Therefore the plight of sexual minorities cannot be used as an argument in deciding the constitutionality of law.

Now several curative petitions filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court. In the meantime when the judgment against the Suresh kaushal case was pending before the court, five people from LGBTQ Community, named Navtej Singh Johar, Ritu Dalmia and Ayesha Kapur, Aman Nath and Sunil Mehta, filed new petitions in challenging the constitutionality of the section 377 as it criminalised the two adults for having consensual sex between same-sex individuals.

Meanwhile on the journey of decriminalization of homosexuality, the second stone of the success was put forward in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) case, in which the honourable Supreme court ruled that Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of life and liberty and thus it comes under the umbrella of Right to life under Article 21 of the constitution. Further the honourable Supreme Court concluded that bodily autonomy is an integral part of Right to Privacy.

The Supreme Court on January 5, 2018, framed a constitution seat for hearing the test to Section 377 in an extensive way, despite the fact that the curative petition was pending before the Court. This could be because of the perceptions settled on in the 9 appointed authority choice morally justified to Privacy case which indicated the inborn unsoundness of the thinking and choice in Suresh Koushal. The 5 appointed authority seats of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra heard the matter from July 1o, 2018.

Finally the journey reached its destination on 6th September 2018 when honourable Supreme Court struck down the section 377 of the IPC and decriminalize the homosexuality. Now after the landmark verdict in the Navtej Singh Johar vs. UOI; Akkai Padmashali vs. UOI, the LGBTQ community is now legally free to do consensual intercourse. But the court upheld provisions in Section 377 that criminalise non-consensual acts or sexual acts performed on animals.

The four decisions collectively referred to fundamental rights infringement in perusing down Section 377. They found that Section 377 oppresses people based on their sexual direction and additionally sex character, disregarding Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Further, they decided that Section 377 disregards the rights to life, poise and self-sufficiency of individual decision under Article 21. At long last, they found that it hinders a LGBT person's capacity to completely understand their character, by abusing the right to opportunity of articulation under Article 19(1)(a).

Former Chief Justice of India Deepak Mishra rightly quoted while writing judgment on behalf of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and himself:
Not for nothing, the great German thinker, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, had said, •I am what I am, so take me as I am:
And similarly, Arthur Schopenhauer had pronounced,

• No one can escape from their individuality–. In this regard, it is profitable to quote a few lines from John Stuart Mill:
• But society has now fairly got the better of individuality; and the danger which threatens human nature is not the excess, but the deficiency of personal impulses and preferences.
  
  The emphasis on the unique being of an individual is the salt of his/her life. Denial of self-expression is inviting death. Irreplaceability of individuality and identity is a grant of respect to self. This realization is ones signature and self-determined design. One defines oneself. That is the glorious form of individuality.
  
  Further in the judgment Doctrine of progressive realization of rights was talked about. In this former Chief Justice of India, concluded that When we talk about the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the protection of these rights, we observe and comprehend a manifest ascendance and triumphant march of such rights which, in turn, paves the way for the doctrine of progressive realization of the rights under the Constitution. This doctrine invariably reminds us about the living and dynamic nature of a Constitution.
   

Moreover the court found that:
The Constitutional Courts, while interpreting the constitutional provisions, have to take into account the constitutional culture, bearing in mind its flexible and evolving nature, so that the provisions are given a meaning which reflect the object and purpose of the Constitution.

Retd. Justice Deepak Mishra compared two sections of the IPC. section 375 which talks about the rape and section 377.

He analyzed Section 375. Rape- A man is said to commit "Rape" if he:

1. Penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
2. Inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
3. Manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
4. applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, so he concluded that to commit rape first it should be against her will, secondly it should be without her consent and thirdly With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. This shows that section is gender- specific, this section is to protect women as only man can rape. He delivered that when we conclude the section 375 we find that consent and will is important to decide whether the rape has committed or not. But unlike section 375, section 377 is gender- neutral as it uses the word whoever in the reading as:
   Section 377. Unnatural offences.Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Further he inferred that the premise on which the section 377 criminalize homosexuality is carnal intercourse and it is being argued that the carnal intercourse between two consenting adult is against the order of the nature, but it lead to raise a question that what is exactly against the order of the nature? Moving forward former chief justice mentioned that the most common argument against criminalizing homosexuality is the essential purpose of the sex is to procreate.

For this argument the honourable Retd. Justice Deepak Mishra penned that With the passage of time and evolution of the society, procreation is not the only reason for which people choose to come together, have live-in relationships, perform coitus or even marry. They do so for a whole lot of reasons including emotional companionship.

Homer Clark writes:
The most significant function of marriage today seems to be that it furnishes emotional satisfactions to be found in no other relationships. For many people it is the refuge from the coldness and impersonality of contemporary existence.– 216.

In the contemporary world where even marriage is now not equated to procreation of children, the question that would arise is whether homosexuality and carnal intercourse between consenting adults of opposite sex can be tagged as -against the order of nature.

It is the freedom of choice of two consenting adults to perform sex for procreation or otherwise and if their choice is that of the latter, it cannot be said to be against the order of nature. Therefore, sex, if performed differently, as per the choice of the consenting adults, does not per se make it against the order of nature.

In the end the Supreme Court stated that the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Law in Relation to Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity' should be applied as a part of Indian law.

The Yogyakarta principle talks about the freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity as basic Human Rights. It was scripted in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, by the expert group of the Human Right pundits.

Conclusion
India, the queer community is as yet a slandered and imperceptible minority. Further, whatever queer community has acquired, it have been conceded by the legal executive; not by governing bodies. Regardless of legal decisions, India's sexual minorities face separation in business, medical problems and individual rights. This makes it incongruent with the nation's living, liberal and comprehensive Constitution.

Justice Anthony Kenedy, the judge of US Supreme court said in Obergefell vs Hodges (2015) that we cannot compromise on the basic human right of marriage and cannot deny to the same-sex people. As of now 2021, same-sex has been recognized in more than 29 countries, it is high time we should make same-sex marriage normal like other marriages.

In Navtej Singh Johar case Justice R F Narihman said that the Government should strengthen the rules and regulation in public places including public offices in order to ensure no threat to homosexuals. Further he said the schools and colleges should also normalize being around homosexuals, and they should be cohorted to read, accept and expose to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The LGTBQ community needs an anti-discrimination law that empowers them to build productive lives and relationships irrespective of gender identity or sexual orientation and place the onus to change on state and society and not the individual. Article 15 of the constitution talks about that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex and gender. If we have to remove the discrimination from the society we should extend the scope of the Article 15 and add grounds of non-descrimination including sexual orientation and gender identity.

Recently the government of the Karnataka notified the 1% reservation to the transgender people of that state. This reservation will be applied to any services or post in all categories of employment. This 1% reservation is available for all the categories be it General, or SC/ST transgender person.

Incentives like this will cohort the people from marginalisation to come in the main society and by this there is a chance we can witness the change in society.

The Constitution is perceived and portrayed as a beacon of fundamental rights. But in this race still the LGBTQ Community is far away from the winning line. If we have to normalize the LGBTQ society and their rights, the power and responsibility should not only be left to the government officials, the onus should also be on the civil society to accept the rights of LGBTQ community.

References:

• https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/section-377-case
• https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/history

Written By:

1. Harsh Shrivastav, Student At Lloyd Law College, Gr. Noida
2. Shreya Bhoyar, Adjudication And Justice, 2nd Year, Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur