Suresh Kamar Koushal and Another v. NAZ Foundation and Others
India Supreme Court
Civil Appeal No. 10972 of 2013 (2013)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 1861, the British colonial government of India introduced § 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 377 criminalized any “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” In 2001, the NAZ Foundation (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, challenging § 377’s ban on homosexual sex between consenting adults. The Delhi High Court initially ruled that the NAZ Foundation lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, a decision later overturned by the India Supreme Court. While the Delhi High Court considered the case, the National AIDS Control Organization filed a supportive affidavit, arguing that § 377 violated the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults. Other LGBT organizations formed a coalition—“Voices Against 377”—to intervene in the case and argued for the High Court to interpret § 377 to exclude consensual adult sexual activity from enforcement. Relying on both domestic law and international precedents on legalizing same-sex relationships, the Delhi High Court held § 377 unconstitutionally violated the plaintiffs’ privacy and dignity, prompting an appeal to the Indian Supreme Court. On appeal, the NAZ Foundation argued that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provided a right to liberty that protected private consensual sexual relations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Singhvi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.