What was the central question in Koushal v. Naz Foundation?

Whether Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts in private, violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

What did the Supreme Court decide in 2014?

It set aside the Delhi High Court’s reading down of Section 377 and held that decriminalization, if any, was for Parliament to decide unless a clear constitutional violation was proven.

Did the judgment criminalize identities or specific groups?

The Court said Section 377 targeted acts, not identities or orientations, and therefore did not discriminate against a class on its face.

How did the Court view evidence of discrimination?

It held that the respondents had not demonstrated specific instances of discriminatory state action sufficient to strike down the provision.

In 2018, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India overruled Koushal on this point and decriminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults.

suresh-kumar-koushal-v-naz-foundation-2014

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr v. Naz Foundation (2014)

Section 377 IPC vs Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 — made simple in clear classroom English.

Supreme Court of India 2014 Bench: — (2014) 1 SCC 1 Constitutional Law 8 min read Gulzar Hashmi India

Quick Summary

Case Title: Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1

Main Point: The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s reading down of Section 377 IPC, holding that any decriminalization of consensual same-sex acts was for the legislature unless a clear constitutional breach was shown.

Outcome: Section 377 remained in force (as interpreted in 2014). The judgment was later overruled on this point in Navtej Singh Johar (2018).

Issues

Does Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalizes consensual same-sex acts in private, violate Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21?

Rules

Section 377 IPC penalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” Constitutional review is guided by the presumption of constitutionality and judicial self-restraint, unless a clear violation is proved.

Facts — Timeline

Timeline visual for facts of Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014)

1994→: NAZ Foundation (NGO) works on HIV/AIDS and sexual health in New Delhi.

Writ in Delhi HC: Challenge to Section 377 alleging violations of Arts. 14, 15, 19, 21.

2 July 2009: Delhi High Court reads down Section 377 to exclude consensual adult same-sex acts in private.

Appeals: Matter reaches the Supreme Court as Koushal v. Naz.

2014 (SCC 1): Supreme Court sets aside the Delhi HC view; holds the provision targets acts, not identities; says change, if any, is for Parliament.

Arguments

Respondents (NAZ & others)

Section 377 violates privacy, dignity, and equality; used to harass sexual minorities.
Hurts public health and HIV prevention; chills access to services.
Discriminates on grounds of sex and sexual orientation (Arts. 14 & 15).

Appellants/Opponents

Provision addresses acts, not identities; policy change lies with Parliament.
Presumption of constitutionality; insufficient proof of state discrimination.
Social morality and potential impact on social institutions cited.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored Section 377 IPC as it stood, holding that the Delhi High Court’s reading down was unwarranted without clear proof of constitutional breach. The Court emphasized judicial restraint and the legislature’s role in reforms.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 377 regulates acts, not identities; facially neutral toward orientation.
Courts apply a presumption of constitutionality and require specific evidence of unconstitutional impact.
Absent such proof, the matter is primarily for Parliament to amend.

Why It Matters

Koushal shows the limits of judicial review where courts defer to the legislature on sensitive social policy. It also frames debates on privacy, dignity, and equality that later led to constitutional change in Navtej.

Key Takeaways

Acts vs identity: Court saw Section 377 as act-based.
Burden of proof: Strong evidence needed to strike a law.
Separation of powers: Policy reform via Parliament.

Article 21 debate: Privacy/dignity claims set the stage for later rulings.
Small numbers point: “Minuscule fraction” remark drew criticism and later rethinking.
Overruled later: Navtej (2018) decriminalized consensual same-sex relations.

Mnemonic & 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic — “A-P-L”: Acts not identity → Presumption of constitutionality → leave to the Legislature.

Spot the Target: Is the law aimed at acts or a class?
Proof Burden: Is there concrete evidence of constitutional harm?
Role Check: Court or Parliament — who should move first?

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether Section 377 IPC violates Arts. 14, 15, 19, 21 when applied to consensual adult same-sex acts in private.

Rule

Presumption of constitutionality; scrutiny requires specific proof of violation; courts exercise restraint in policy areas.

Application

Evidence placed was found insufficient; Section 377 deemed act-focused; change urged as a legislative task.

Conclusion

Delhi HC judgment set aside; Section 377 continued (later overruled in Navtej).

Glossary

Section 377 IPC: Colonial-era provision penalizing “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”
Presumption of Constitutionality: Courts begin by assuming a statute is valid unless clear violation is shown.
Reading Down: Judicial technique to limit a statute’s scope to save it from invalidation.