Ad
related to: navtej singh johar judgement pdf format book in tamil
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The petitioners were dancer Navtej Singh Johar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath and Keshav Suri, and businesswoman Ayesha Kapur. [5] This case was the first instance wherein the petitioners argued that they had all been directly aggrieved because of Section 377, alleging it to be a direct violation of fundamental ...
This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377. [19] [20] [21] In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 Naz Foundation judgment. On 6 September 2018, the Court ruled unanimously in Navtej Singh Johar v.
This judgement thus overruled the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): [17] A person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended during emergency. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [18] 2018 Decriminalisation of acts of Oral sex and Anal sex which effectively decriminalised Homosexual sex.
In June 2016, Johar and five others, belonging to sexual and gender minority community, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. [8] This resulted in the 2018 landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v.
To make their case, they point to the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018) that explicitly differentiated and excluded marital relationships while reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code for violating fundamental rights. They argue that the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexual conduct but did not legitimise it.
The petitioners also contended that the exclusion of same-sex marriage from the SMA violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the fundamental right of equality.
However, on 4 February 2021, the Allahabad High Court ruled that firing and discriminating against a person in employment on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling of the Supreme Court, hence extending the anti-discriminatory provisions to employment everywhere.
The case came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar, and the judgment was delivered on 2 July 2009. [9] The Court located the rights to dignity and privacy within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 (under the fundamental Right to Freedom charter) of the Constitution, and held that criminalization of consensual gay ...