CDS (II) 2024 General Knowledge · Question 45 of 120

Correct — A, Naz Foundation (India) Trust. The Naz Foundation (India) Trust, a Delhi organisation working on HIV and sexual health, brought the litigation that made section 377 a constitutional question. It filed a public interest petition in the Delhi High Court in 2001, and on 2 July 2009 the High Court held in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi that section 377, so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults in private, violated Articles 21, 14 and 15. That judgment was appealed and set aside by the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation on 11 December 2013, with Naz Foundation as the respondent defending its win; the provision was finally read down in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India on 6 September 2018. Of the four organisations named, only Naz Foundation has ever litigated section 377. One point of accuracy the paper glosses over: the challenge was first mounted in the Delhi High Court, and reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

• (b)Bachpan Bachao Andolan — Bachpan Bachao Andolan, founded by Kailash Satyarthi, litigates on child labour, trafficking and missing children; its best-known case concerns the registration of first information reports in missing-children complaints, not section 377.
• (c)Sambhav Foundation India — Sambhav Foundation India works on skilling and livelihoods for young people from low-income households; it has not been a party to the section 377 litigation.
• (d)ActionAid India — ActionAid India is a development organisation working on poverty, land rights and social exclusion; it was not the petitioner in the section 377 challenge.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, an 1860 provision drafted on a Victorian model, punished 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature'. The constitutional attack on it ran for nearly two decades through three judgments: the Delhi High Court's reading down in 2009, its reversal by the Supreme Court in 2013, and the unanimous decision of a five-judge Bench in 2018 which held that consensual sexual conduct between adults in private is protected by the rights to privacy, dignity and equality.

This is a who-brought-the-case item, and the way in is to know that petitioners in landmark constitutional litigation are usually named in the case title itself. The case is universally cited as Naz Foundation, so the petitioner is the Naz Foundation. The other three organisations are real and well known, which is what makes the option set work; each has a different field, and none has touched this provision. Note also the sequence, because examiners test it: 2009 High Court, 2013 Supreme Court reversal, 2018 Supreme Court decision in Navtej Singh Johar, which relied on the privacy judgment in K. S. Puttaswamy of 2017. Since then the same court declined in October 2023 to recognise same-sex marriage, leaving that question to Parliament.

• Naz Foundation (India) Trust filed its public interest petition against section 377 in the Delhi High Court in 2001.
• The Delhi High Court decided Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi on 2 July 2009, reading down section 377 as violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15.
• The Supreme Court set that judgment aside in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation on 11 December 2013.
• A five-judge Bench decriminalised consensual adult conduct in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India on 6 September 2018, relying on the privacy judgment in K. S. Puttaswamy (2017).
• Bachpan Bachao Andolan, founded by Kailash Satyarthi, works on child labour and trafficking and is unconnected with this litigation.

• Placing the whole litigation in the Supreme Court; the challenge began and first succeeded in the Delhi High Court in 2009.
• Confusing the 2013 reversal with the 2018 decision — the case names differ and so does the outcome.
• Attributing the petition to a better-known organisation such as Bachpan Bachao Andolan simply because the name is familiar.

As an identification of the petitioner or the case in a landmark constitutional matter, or as a chronology of the judgments on a single provision.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was read down as regards consensual acts between adults by the Supreme Court in which one of the following cases?

  • (a)Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation
  • (b)Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
  • (c)Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
  • (d)Shayara Bano v. Union of India

  Answer(b) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India — decided by a five-judge Bench on 6 September 2018.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The 2009 judgment in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi was delivered by

  • (a)the Supreme Court of India
  • (b)the Delhi High Court
  • (c)the Bombay High Court
  • (d)the National Human Rights Commission

  Answer(b) the Delhi High Court — its decision was later set aside by the Supreme Court in 2013.