NAZ FOUNDATION V. GOVT.

OF NCT OF DELHI:

8. The petitioner submits that while right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty
and guaranteed to the citizens, in order to be meaningful, the pursuit of happiness
encompassed within the concepts of privacy, human dignity individual autonomy and the
human need for an intimate personal sphere require that privacy - dignity claim concerning
private, consensual, sexual relations are also afforded protection within the ambit of the said
fundamental right to life and liberty given under Article 21. It is averred that no aspect of
one's life may be said to be more private or intimate than that of sexual relations, and since
private, consensual, sexual relations or sexual preferences figure prominently within an
individual's personality and lie easily at the core of the "private space", they are an
inalienable component of the right of life. Based on this line of reasoning, a case has
been made to the effect that the

prohibition of certain private, consensual sexual relations

(homosexual) provided by Section 377 IPC unreasonably

abridges the right of privacy and dignity within the ambit of

right to life and liberty under Article 21. The petitioner

argues that fundamental right to privacy under Article 21

can be abridged only for a compelling state interest which,

in its submission, is amiss here.

9. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Section 377 IPC's
legislative objective of penalizing "unnatural sexual acts" has no rational nexus to the
classification created between procreative and non- procreative sexual acts, and is
thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

INDIRA SAWHNEY V. UNION OF INDIA

3. 'Liberty, equality and fraternity' was the battle cry of the French Revolution.
It is also the motto of our Constitution, with the concept of 'Justice-Social
Economic and Poilitical' .All religious and political schools of thought swear by
it, including the Hindu religious thought

5. Article 14 enjoins upon the state not to deny to any person "equality before
the law" or "the equal protection of the laws" within the territory of India.
Most constitutions speak of either "equality before the law" or "the equal
protection of the laws", but very few of both.

DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DOORDARSHAN V. ANAND

PATWARDHAN

One of the most controversial issues is balancing the need to protect society
against the potential harm that may flow from obscene material, and the need to
ensure respect for freedom of expression and to preserve a free flow of
information and idea. The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression but
in Article 19(2) it also makes it clear that the State may impose reasonable
restriction in the interest of public decency and morality.

The crucial question therefore, is, 'what is obscenity?' The law relating to
obscenity is laid down in Sec.292 of the Indian Penal Code, which came about, by
Act 36 of 1969. Under the present sec.292 and sec.293 of the Indian Penal Code,
there is a danger of publication meant for public good or for bona fide purpose of
science, literature, art or any other branch of learning being declared as obscene
literature as there is no specific provision in the act for exempting them from
operations of those sections.

KAILASH ALIAS KALA V. STATE OF HARYANA

8. "Lord Devlin appears to defend the moderate thesis. I say "appears" because,
though He says that society has the right to enforce morality as such on the
ground that a shared morality is essential to society's existence, it is not at all
clear that for him the statement that immorality jeopardizes or weakens society is
a statement of empirical fact. It seems sometimes to be an a priori assumption,
and sometimes a necessary truth and a very odd one. The most important
indication that this is so is that, apart from one vague reference to "history"
showing that "the loosening of moral bonds is often the first stage of
disintegration, no evidence is produced to show that deviation from accepted
sexual morality, even by adults in private, is something which, like treason,
threatens the existence of society.

It is of course clear (and one of the oldest insights of political theory) that society
could not exist without a morality which mirrored and supplemented the law's
proscription of conduct injurious to other.
CHIRANJIT LAL CHOWDHURI V. THE UNION OF INDIA

Article 14 corresponds to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which declares
that "no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws". Professor Willis dealing with this clause sums up the law as prevail-
ing in the United States in regard to it in these words:--

"Meaning and effect of the guaranty--The guaranty of the equal protection of the
laws means the protection of equal laws. It forbids class legislation, but does not
forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. It does
not prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the objects to which it is
directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. 'It merely requires that
all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike under like
circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and in the liabili-
ties imposed.' A law apply- ing to one person or one class of persons is
constitutional if there is sufficient basis or reason for it." There can be no doubt
that article 14 provides one of the most valuable and important guarantees in the
Constitution which should not be allowed to be whittled down

FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN V. UNION OF INDIA

(5) The right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be

restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much
more than just physical survival.

RAM NARAIN SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA

11. Moral Turpitude is not defined in any Statute but this term frequently occurs
in various Statutes. In legal concept, this is a conduct which is considered
contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals. It has been
described as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. It is an act
or behaviour that gravely violates moral sentiment or accepted moral standards
of community and is of a morally culpable quality held to be present in some
criminal offences as distinguished from others.

12. The court held that The test which can be applied for judging whether an offence does or
does not involve "moral turpitude" can be summarised as follows:
(1) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of
society in general;

(2) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one; and

(3) Whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered
to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society.

Mihir Alias Bhikari Charan Sahu vs State of Orissa

6. The proof of an offence Under Section 377 is to be gathered from the following

aspects ; i.e., (i) the accused had carnal intercourse with any man, woman or
animal ; (ii) such intercourse was against the order of Nature ;(iii) the act of the
accused was done voluntarily; and (iv) there was penetration The offence implies
sexual perversity.