Section 377 of Indian Penal Code Content : Introduction,Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,Section 377 is a violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty ! Why?,IPC Section 377 Law and It’s History,Conclusion.

2. Content
• Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code
• Section 377 is a violation of the fundamental right to life and
liberty ! Why?
• IPC Section 377 Law and It’s History
• Conclusion

4. Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code
dating back to 1861,introduced during the British rule of
India, criminalises sexual activities
"against the order of nature", arguably
including homosexual acts.

5. SECTION 377 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is a section of the Indian Penal Code introduced in 1864 during the
British rule of India. Modelled on the Buggery Act of 1533, it is used to criminalize sexual activities "against
the order of nature".
Section 377 of IPC states: 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.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in
this section.

6. The law violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees all people "equality
before the law;" Article 15, which prohibits discrimination "on grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex or place of birth;" and Article 21, which guarantees "protection of life
and personal liberty."

7. IPC SECTION 377 LAW AND IT’S HISTORY
•Introduced in 1861 during the British rule of India.
•Declared unconstitutional with respect to sex between consenting adults by the Delhi High Court on 2 July
2009.
•Judgement overturned by the Supreme Court of India on 11 December 2013, holding that amending or
repealing Section 377 should be a matter left to parliament not the judiciary.
•The decision of the Supreme Court met with heavy criticism and was not accepted by the a lot of people.
Thus, in February 2016, a curative petition was submitted by Naz Foundation and the Chief Justice of India,
T.S. Thakur decided that the petitions will be reviewed again by a constitutional bench consisting of five
members as it was decided that homosexuality is a subject that should be left to be decided by the legislature.
•Finally Supreme court gave the final verdict in 2018 and it is said that “Consensual adult gay sex is not a
crime and article 14 and 21 of Indian Constitution contradict the present view of Section 377.”

8. VALIDATION OF THE IPC SECTION 377
• The presentation proposes to validate the argument that one kind of legal change or legal
change in isolation, does not lead to substantial social change. There is a need for multiple
approaches both within the law (such as articulations of a non-discrimination clause in the
constitution) and outside the legal system. Lobbying around discriminatory laws has to be
coupled with larger discussions and advocacy around changes in social perceptions as well
as changes in other public structures such as policy-making, media, education etc.
• Yet another significant aspect that comes with the perception of law as the center of social
change and thus social movements is identity-based rights’ demands and thus exclusion.

9. CONCLUSION
We live in the 21st century and it is time to break free from the shackles of orthodoxy and
embrace the progressive laws. Homosexuals do not harm the society, criminals
do. Homosexuals are not detrimental to the society as consent is involved and activities
take place between two adults. It does not harm any third person in the society. On the other
hand, rape does not involve consent and the country should be focusing on punishing rapists
and other criminals instead of criminalising sexual activities between consenting adults and
punishing the innocent. There are so many more progressive laws that India needs to
introduce as soon as possible.

10. “HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PERSON’S SEXUAL
PREFERENCE AND NOT A DISEASE, JUST BECAUSE
HETEROSEXUALITY IS “COMMON” DOES NOT MEAN
IT IS A NORM AND HOMOSEXUALS VIOLATE IT”

11. THANK YOU