The Long BenchDoctrine 2 of 8Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21
In 2013 Koushal upheld section 377 and left any change to Parliament; a year later NALSA recognised the right to self-identify one’s gender. In 2017 a nine-judge bench in Puttaswamy held privacy to be a fundamental right, and its reasoning on dignity, autonomy and proportionality carried Navtej, Joseph Shine and the Aadhaar judgment. In 2023 Supriyo held that there is no fundamental right to marry and left same-sex marriage to Parliament.
7 judgments · 2013 to 2023 · 11 links to earlier cases
In date order. The line above each judgment says what it did to an earlier case; Later says what became of it. Follow this case lights up the judgments it is linked to in this chapter.
2013
The Koushal case
Overruled by Navtej Singh Johar (2018)
Held. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s 2009 judgment in Naz Foundation and held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code constitutional, observing that LGBT persons were a “miniscule fraction” of the country’s population, and leaving any change to Parliament.
Why it matters. It was overruled five years later in Navtej Singh Johar.
Later Overruled by Navtej Singh Johar (2018)
2014
Built on Maneka Gandhi (1978) · Life and personal liberty
The transgender rights case
Held. The Court recognised transgender persons as a “third gender”, held that the right to self-identify one’s gender is part of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, and directed the governments to treat them as socially and educationally backward for reservations and to provide welfare measures.
Why it matters. It led, eventually, to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Later Built on in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) · Built on in Supriyo Chakraborty (2023)
2017
Overruled in part Kharak Singh (1962) · Life and personal libertyOverruled A.D.M. Jabalpur (1976) · Life and personal libertyApplied Maneka Gandhi (1978) · Life and personal liberty
The right to privacy case
Held. A nine-judge bench unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right, protected as part of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and by the freedoms in Part III. It overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh to the extent they held otherwise, and said that the majority in A.D.M. Jabalpur was seriously flawed.
Why it matters. Puttaswamy is the source of the proportionality test now used for almost every rights claim, and it opened the way to Navtej and Joseph Shine.
Later Applied in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) · Applied in Joseph Shine (2018) · Applied in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) (2018) · Applied in Anuradha Bhasin (2020) · Freedom of speech and expression · Applied in Electoral bonds case (2024) · Elections and democracy
2018
Applied K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)
The adultery case
Held. The Court unanimously struck down section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which punished a man for adultery with another man’s wife but treated the wife as her husband’s property and not as an offender. Adultery may still be a ground for divorce, but it is no longer a crime.
Why it matters. It is often paired with Navtej as an application of dignity and equality under Puttaswamy.
2018
Applied K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)
The Aadhaar case
Held. By four to one, the Court upheld the Aadhaar scheme for welfare subsidies and benefits, but struck down section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which had let private companies demand Aadhaar, and held that it cannot be made compulsory for bank accounts, mobile connections or school admissions. Justice Chandrachud dissented.
Why it matters. It is the first major application of the proportionality test from the privacy judgment.
2023
Built on Navtej Singh Johar (2018)Built on National Legal Services Authority (2014)
The same-sex marriage case
Held. The Court unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples, leaving the question to Parliament. By three to two, it also declined to recognise civil unions or allow joint adoption by unmarried couples.
Why it matters. It recorded the government’s offer to set up a committee to examine the rights of queer couples.
