We can eat beef or pork which we want to eat, cause that right is given by Indian Constitution. I can marry someone from different caste, religion but if my body says to marry or love or intercourse with someone I feel to be with I cannot because of he or she is same gender? Here NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR V. UNION OF INDIA is a perfect set of answer for this question.
A men is to be love my a woman and woman also should do the same it can be supported by blind religions gurus or political leaders with a fascist view or illiterates but it shouldn't be supported by law, law is made to maintain the harmony of society and where society feels something different than traditional male-female binary then law needs to understands them and bring that postive change for the society, no matter they're majority or minority in number's.
HOW THE FIGHT BEGAN
Binary of male-female transgender also exists, as like a community is exists, they look different from human eye's and feel something different from the heart and body. So when they steps towards their hearts sound as a sexual intercourse with same sex or marriage 377 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860 showed them red eye's like Hitler. As Hitler were finished by communists and news papers printed in bold letters “HITLER DEAD” as a symbol of victory LGBTQ+ also did the same with NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR V. UNION OF INDIA case.
So, the issue of the case originated in 2009 in the case of NAZ FOUNDATION V. GOVT OF N.C.T of Delhi High Court, where Delhi HC held 377 IPC is totally unconstitutional. Then the case of SURESH KUMAR KAUSHAL V. NAZ FOUNDATION,2013 overturned the decision which was made previously by Delhi HC.
Now in 2016 the petitioner, Navjet Singh Johar is a dancer and identifed as a member of LGBTQ community. Petitioner sought recognition of the Right to sexuality, Right to sexual autonomy and Right to choose a sexual partner to be part of the Right to life guaranteed by article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 .
ISSUE OF THE CASE
1) Wheather 377 of IPC,1860 is should be stucked down as it is unconstitutional or not.
2) Wheather section 377 defines reasonable classification between natural and unnatural sex?
OBSERVATION BY COURT
Supreme Court relied on NALSA V. UNION OF INDIA, 2014 said that “Gender Identity is intrinsic to one's personal and denying the some would be violative of one's dignity”.
The court also relied upon the decision in K.S PUTTASWAMI V. UNION OF INDIA, 2017 and held that denying the LGBTQ+ community it's Right to privacy on the ground that they form a minority of the population would be violation of their fundamental right. The court affirmed that “Intimacy between consenting adult of the same sex is beyond the legitimate interest of the state.”
In the words of opinion by EX CHIEF JUSTICE DEEPAK MISHRA said, just because they are not in majority that does not mean we bypass their rights. EX CJI D.Y. CHANDRACHUD said that law must not discriminate against same sex relationship, it must take positive steps to achieve equal protection and grant the community “equal citizen in all its manifestation”.
CONCLUSION
We live in a society where a LGBTQ identified member thinks hundreds time to express their feelings to public and at the same time we portray ourselves as a part of so called modern digitally advanced country, Where our morality should be repaired, view should be changed to them. In this situation only law can maintain the harmony, The stricter and more stringent the law, the more vigilant people will be,Society will slowly change if strict legal action is taken against those who make fun of LGBTQ people on the streets, in chat rooms, and on social media.This case judgement is just a founding stone of the revolutionary victory for LGBTQ community, The fight has a long way to go, so the fight for rights will continue. Here, the fascist government may politely accept the demands, otherwise the path to a liberal revolution is always open.