In so far as any action between man woman gay or same s*x individuality and privileged privacy policy terms of secrecy NOT BE TAKEN AS A infringement of their respective parties individual performance in secrecy should be treated as confidential information and their choice selective organised INTERPRETATIONS and interactive happiness.... their activities should not be taken as a right to make published for media marketing press popularity.
Any further indulgence to make this type of unnecessary and unnatural s*x individuality should not be taken as a right to make as a PUBLIC issue by any person, party, organised persons, media marketing press or TV , news and events even though the police might have made a criminal case against the PERSONS involved, that too,on a written complaint from concern WHO might have been affected by such MAKE shift unnatural s*x acts.
Any such information LEAKAGE by any means should be taken as a crime and the person, persons, group of people, media, press release TV news, etc, should be treated as criminal activity in propaganda machine moved to instabilise the peace and tranquility of the country, society. THEY must be arrested and prosecution be made.
THEY should be treated as most UNWANTED spreadsheeters of ventures of uncalled for situations making as a PUBLIC issue and should be penalised to maximum punishment and penalty.
As it is understood that the case of intercourse ...wife with some other person, other than the husband, and such case on a complaint by husband is, now, itself became compoundable offence; then what to write more!!!???
If that was the matter being developed, WHY the police or the other party interference be encouraged unless such gay acts spoil the society peace and tranquility and disturb the mind set by making such process openly.
The Apex Court judgment is available on website.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF 2016 NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. …Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE …Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 572 OF 2016 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 100 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 101 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 121 OF 2018 J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)
C O N T E N T S S. No(s). Heading Page No(s) A. Introduction………………………………………… 3-11 B. The Reference………………… 2 C. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners…… 15-30 D. Submissions on behalf of the respondents and other intervenors.………………………….… 31-44 E. Decisions in Naz Foundation and Suresh Koushal………………..…………………………….. 45-48 F. Other judicial pronouncements on Section 377 IPC ……………………….………………………….. 48-57 G. The Constitution – an organic charter of progressive rights………………………………… 57-64 H. Transformative constitutionalism and the rights of LGBT community………………………. 65-74 I. Constitutional morality and Section 377 IPC…. 74-81 J. Perspective of human dignity…………………… 81-89 K. Sexual orientation…………………………………. 89-96 L. Privacy and its concomitant aspects…………... 96-111 M. Doctrine of progressive realization of rights…………………………………………………. 111-118 N. International perspective…………………………. 118 (i) United States……………………………… 118-122 (ii) Canada…………………………………….. 123-125 (iii) South Africa………………………………. 125 (iv) United Kingdom…………………………. 126-127 (v) Other Courts/Jurisdictions…………….. 127-129 3 O. Comparative analysis of Section 375 and Section 377 IPC………………………………….… 129-140 P. Q. The litmus test for survival of Section 377 IPC…….……………………………………………… Conclusions………………………………………… 140-156 156-166
New Delhi; September 6, 2018.
