Open Access Research Article
THE ROLE OF INTERPRETATION IN SOCIAL CHANGE: DECRIMINALISATION OF SECTION 377 IPC
Published Paper
Article Details
THE ROLE OF INTERPRETATION IN SOCIAL
CHANGE: DECRIMINALISATION OF SECTION 377 IPC
AUTHORED BY - VIDHI SANTOSH RANE
LLB 2021 (SECTION D)
ID- 21010499
I.
INTRODUCTION
The quest for equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community
has been challenging and prolonged, accompanied by enumerous court fights and
social campaigns all trying to achieve the same objective of removing
structural oppression that has been imposed on the queer community. The main
crux of the battle lies in the crucial questions of: how exactly does one
comprehend Section 377[1] and the Indian Constitution, along with
the pre-historical societal trenches in terms of the rights to life, equality,
dignity, and expression of the LGBTQ+ community?
The judiciary being an integral organ of
the functioning of the country, interpretation plays a way bigger role in
social change than anticipated; it is a vital component in shaping society and
our position within it[2]. Without proper interpretative
techniques, the statutes might as well be random words bunched together because
it is the interpretation through which we can gain the true meaning of law. The
decriminalisation of Section 377, which marks an innaugral in itself for the
LGBTQ+ rights in India through the case Navtej Singh Johar vs. UOI[3], through reversing the models of the
process of interpretation and after many failed attempts in various cases,
including Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation[4], is a powerful illustration of the
transformative power of interpretation.
The role of interpretation of statues
extends far beyond the courtroom; it is an efficient mechanism that can be used
in challenging prevailing narratives and mobilising societies to collectively
reimagine the world as we perceive it. The primary aim of this study is to point
out the errors made by the judges in interpreting Section 377, with a
suggestive emphasis on what alternative techniques could be employed to reach
the proper interpretation faster. The paper also contends that by engaging in
an intellectual debate about the law, constitution, society, and various
contexts that flow from it, we will gain a better understanding of the
interpretation of draconian laws such as Section 377 in the dynamic setting of
the world today.
II)
SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL V. NAZ FOUNDATION
A)
FACTUAL BACKDROP
It is often said that "with great power comes great
responsibility," and similarly, the judiciary, being an integral organ of the
government, bears enormous responsibility in not only imparting justice but
also shaping society. Even a minute error by the judges in the interpretation
of a statue, which might vary from choosing an improper approach to a statue to
failing to correctly administer a doctrine, can result in disastrous
consequences and send us back decades. A prime example for this is the case
that is heavily criticised and precisely depicts how much of an impact an error
in judgement can have on the society at large: Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz
Foundation and Others. This dispute was centred around the ideas of envisaging
basic fundamental rights for the persons belonging to the LGBTQ+ community, how
their mere existence became a source of prosecution and punishment under the
law, and all of this solely on the basis of an antiquated provision, namely,
Section 377, of the Indian Penal Code 1860, and the values ingrained into the
Indian legal system not through our Indian culture and principles but rather
through the canals of the Common Law.[5]
Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation is considered a landmark judgement in
Indian legislation for more than one reason. It addressed the legitimacy of
Section 377 of the IPC, which was a provision set up in the colonial era,
penalising "unnatural” sexual acts, which at that time included consentual
homosexual activities among adults, which naturally had the effect of
prosecution and discrimination against the members belonging to the LGBTQ+
community. In an attempt to put an end to this grave injustice, in 2009, a NGO
by the name of Naz Foundation, which till date works on issues related to
sexual health and creating awareness on HIV/AIDS, filed a writ petition
challenging the constitutionality of Section 377. The High Court held that
Section 377 was unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalised consensual
sexual acts between adults of the same sex.[6] However, in 2013, the Supreme Court of
India overturned the High Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz
Foundation and Others, stating that Section 377 does not violate the Indian
Constitution and was a necessary measure to protect public morality[7]. This paper is an attempt to demystify
the judgement, spell it out and analyse the errors committed by each of the
courts in interpreting the statutes that eventually lead to a faulty judgement.
B) ANALYSIS OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
AND ERRORS IN INTERPRETATION:
The reasoning of Chief Justice Shah and
Justice Muralidhar unilaterally and undeniably ruled in favour of the
contentions raised by the Naz Foundation. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was
of the opinion that the progression and development in the social context of
the country should not be negated by validating archaic provisions because, by
doing so, we move one step further downward into the erroneous notions of
morality. A hint of Gadamer’s hermeneutic circle can be seen here. In layman's
terms, the hermeneutic circle is a technique widely used in analysing legal
statutes as well as literary works. It aims to eliminate any obstacles, such as
adhering to the bare text or only to the recent assumption of the general
public towards a particular statute or legislative policy.[8] Interpretation, according to Gadamer,
should be limitless and not bound to the four corners of the text. There are
different perspectives on a statue, taking into account surrounding factors
such as a dynamic interrelation between legal language, a societal setting, and
the rights envisaged for an individual, and only a harmonious reading of all
these perspectives gives us the most appropriate interpretation of the statue’s
applicability in the current day. This method of interpretation is especially
important when it comes to a case like this, where issues relating to minority
individual rights affected by societal norms in a dynamic society are decided.[9] Also, there is an element of the golden
rule of interpretation that can be seen here, where the ordinary meaning of the
words leads to the absurd effect of criminalising adults engaging in consentual
intercourse. So, the courts here took into account the context in which the
provision was written, the overall intention and applicability, the language
and phraseology present, and the effect of application of the provision.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court, did not
just limit itself to engage a variety of legal material, including domestic and
international judgements; it also gave a lot of importance to a comparative
interpretation of the law by relying on landmark judgements of different
jurisdictions, which included the European Court of Human Rights, the United
Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, and the USA. Moreover, in
assessing the extent of the detrimental discriminatory effects that the archaic
provision was the source of, the court employed numerous human rights studies
and an advancing global legal framework, along with principles like the
Yogyakarta Principles and the Equal Rights Trust's Declaration of Principles of
Equality.[10] The High Court, after a thorough
understanding of the text in relation to all the context surrounding it, held that
Section 377 passes the golden triangle test, as depicted by the invalid
classification of adults engaging in consensual sexual relations in private as
criminals, and thereby grossly violating the fundamental rights of equality,
expression, personal liberty, and freedom.[11] This reasoning again highlights
Gadmer’s approach and the Golden Rule, where it is contended that there has to
be a fusion of horizons between the interpreter and the text; they should not
restrict themselves to the text of the law but go beyond and look at the
broader context, like the historical and cultural context, and interpret the
archiac with the proper context and humility to arrive at an interpretation
that properly bridges the gap between the past and the present.[12]
However, applying perfect reasoning
while interpreting does not always result in the perfect outcome. There are
specific principles important to interpreting and constructing a statue that
should be appropriately chosen among many by the judges for the correct
interpretation. Here, the High Court made an error, where the judges intended
to apply the doctrine of severability to the provision but instead had the
effect of reading down the statute. The doctrine of severability, if properly
applied, has the effect of affirming the independent functionality of a
specific portion of the statute, which is held to be within the constitutional
boundaries, while invalidating the remainder of the unconstitutional part of
the statute. By making this separation, it serves the purpose of maintaining
the lawful purpose of the statute and respecting the intention of the
legislature.[13] However, the High Court in this case
interpreted it by reading down into various aspects of the provision. This
reading down gave the provision some sense of operational validity. This minute
mistake resulted in the High Court overstepping its boundaries and acting ultra
vires to the powers allocated to it within the doctrine of separation of
powers, which is considered one of the basic structures of the Indian
Constitution. While giving the judgement, it assumed the role of the
legislature. This can be deduced from the fact that there was a certain level
of uncertainty in determining whether there was a need to sever or read it
down, and in an attempt to do both harmoniously, an entirely new meaning was
given to the provision, which was substantially different from the intention of
the legislature. The proper interpretation of law employing various contexts
and humility should not always lead to overturning a provision in an attempt at
the proper interpretation of a provision and judicial radicalism, which is also
a criticism of Gadamer's Hermeneutic Circle. The interpretation of a provision
in the light of social development may result in invalidating laws when
modification and severability are still options.[14] [15]
C) ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGEMENT AND ERRORS IN INTERPRETATION:
The judgement given by the Supreme
Court, overturning the High Court's decision and upholding the
constitutionality of a discriminatory provision, is a prime example of judicial
conservatism through a failure to take into account the context around the said
provision and a blatant ignorance towards the evolving trend of human rights
and the need for inclusivity and non-discrimination in modern democracies. This
judgement has been widely criticised for the errors in the appropriate mode of
statutory implementation for an archaic provision like the one in question. The
Supreme Court stuck to textualism and limited itself to the literal rule of
interpretation while analysing the provision. Texualism, or the literal rule of
interpretation, was famously used and popularised by the works of Justice
Scalia. It is a statutory interpretation technique that requires the judges to
stick to the ordinary meaning of the provision to ensure that the legislative
intentions are met. This method is successfully employed when the provision to
be interpreted is clear and unambiguous and the phraseology has one clear
meaning. This, according to the textualist, promotes certainty, consistency,
and predictability in the legal system. However, this can lead to detrimental
effects when applied to a law that is ambiguous or unclear, and the application
of the literal rule would result in absurd and unjust results. As the situation
is, the judges may feel the need to deviate from the literal rule and employ
other principles to take a fair and just stance.
Here, there were two possible routes
that the Supreme Court could have taken in this instance: one, follow the text
of the provision and uphold the validity of the archaic law; or, attempt to
garner the spirit of the law, given the social context, and uphold the
reasoning and decision of the High Court and severe the provision. The prior
meant the use of the literal rule and narrow interpretation, which would lead
to inequality, discrimination, and promote public malice towards the homosexual
commodity. On the other hand, the latter meant a step towards a more equal,
inclusive, and safe environment for everyone and protecting their fundamental
and human rights of equality, expression, privacy, and personal liberty. The
courts here made an error in judgement and stuck to the bare text of the
provision. This error resulted in a faulty judgement that lacked proper legal
reasoning and a failure to take into account the principles of equality,
non-discrimination, and dignity, which form the cornerstone of the Indian
Constitution and are essential for the development of society. The courts
disregarded medical and scientific data presented by the respondents,
demonstrating the evidence that homosexuality is merely a normal variation of
human sexuality and not a mental illness as propagated by ill-informed and
ignorant people in society.[16]
Further, the courts failed to take into
account the consequences of unnecessarily criminalising homosexual intercourse,
such as increased social stigma, prejudice, intimidation, and brutality towards
a minority section of society. The courts also failed to protect minority
rights, citing a lack of reported cases of harassment and inequality. But
aren't the courts respecting and valuing every individual and passing judgements
that are not favouring numbers but justice? There is seen as a tussle between
assessing together the concepts of morals and law and stating that the moral
rejection of a specific act is an adequate justification for criminalising a
provision. Moral consideration in cases like these will almost always result in
faulty judgements because the whole idea of morality is arbitrary in nature,
and here the morals of the majority have been the basis, ignoring the moral
stand ground of the minority[17]. The judgement also disregarded the
rights protecting the sexual preferences of a person under the fundamental
rights of equality, dignity, and privacy by considering the criminalization of
consentual intercourse between adults. So, in conclusion, applying the literal
interpretation to a pre-colonial provision would undoubtedly result in absurd
outcomes, so in a situation like this, the courts should sway away from the
bare text and employ principles like the hermeneutic circle and the golden
rule, which do not limit the understanding and the judge's own experiences,
prejudices, and social context, but use them to form an interpretation that is
correct.[18][19]
III) NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS.
UOI
A) FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Now, to one of the landmark judgements,
which came in as a panacea against the long-fought battle for equality and
dignity, which was won at least to some extent. This extremely tedious journey
of ascertaining a correct interpretation by applying appropriate techniques of
interpretation of the pre-colonial penal statute, which was a source of extreme
cruelty, discrimination, public stigma, lack of expression, among many others,
that had a violative effect on the fundamental rights of a person, came to an end
with the Supreme Court’s decision in Navtej Singh Johar vs. UOI with the declaration of Section 377 invalid to
the extent of criminalising sexual activities between consentual adults of
same-sex. And while it is definitely a milestone for the initiation of LGBTQ+
rights in India, it is also a case that is one of a kind that sets a benchmark
for the interpretation of an archaic penal statute in today’s modern world.
The case of Navtej Singh Johar vs. UOI is a landmark moment in Indian legal
history, not only because it marked a significant milestone in the fight for
LGBTQ+ rights in the country but also because it involved a critical aspect of
the interpretation of statutes. The essence of the case lay in the alignment of
the long-contested interpretation of Section 377 with the provisions of the
Constitution in the context of dynamic social realities. The perfect balance
between the rights of the individual and the public's sentiments The judges had
to deal with complex legal problems, which required extensive research, in
ascertaining the meaning and medical accuracy of "sexual preference"
and interlinking it to the broader concepts of equality, privacy, and
minimising government's interference in personal ways of living life, as well
as the contention that Section 377 is a product of a bygone era that has to be
left in the past where it comes from with orthodox opinions of decency and
public morality. It was only natural that the interpretation of such a complex
case would require a great deal of legal reasoning along with the application
of various rules of statutory interpretation to reach a conclusion.[20]
B) ANALYSIS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
STATUTE IN THE JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court, which included a
five-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, with sitting Justice
A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and
Justice Indu Malhotra, collectively resorted to a trial-and-error method to
ascertain which rule or combination of rules of interpretation gives the most
desirable solution. Desirability, however, is a subjective concept, but to have
uniformity and unarbitrariness to the judgement, the desirability here was
measured through a range of "constitutional morality" principles like
the utilitarian theory, the harm principle, and Lord Devlin and Hart’s debates
on law and morality. Application of which stated that consentual intercourse
between same-sex adults does not cause any harm to anyone else. Moreover, a
provision like this has the effect of repressing the LGBTQ+ community by
painting them as criminals.[21] Here, there can be seen a rejection of
the orthodox interpretation, i.e., the literal interpretation of the provision,
which in essence gave an absurd result to an interpretation method, and a shift
to a combination of interpreting techniques that, when used in harmony,
perfectly eliminate all the barriers standing in the way of a desirable
statutory interpretation.
The courts used the golden rule of
interpretation to reach a conclusion that was both just and fair and took into
account all the essential elements for the interpretation of an archaic
provision. The golden rule of interpretation, which was first popularised in the
16th century, is an important tool of interpretation. According to the Golden
Rule, a judge while interpreting a statute should refrain from employing a
literal reading of a provision that could lead to bizarre or irrational
outcomes. Rather, a provision should be interpreted in a manner that is in
alignment with the legislature's intention and the overall contextual viewpoint
of the judges[22]. This can be seen as an amalgamation of
the purposive rule, the contextual rule, and the comparative rule. The evidence
for this can be found in the reasoning of the court, right from the quotes
cited by Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, the words of Shakespeare, Goethe, Oscar
Wilde, Leonard Cohen, and many more, to break free the LGBTQ community from the
handcuffs of social and legal norms to international legal documents assessing
the provision.
While analysing the provision through a
purposive approach, the court's main aim is to maintain the sanctity of the
legislature's intention. This means the judges went a step beyond the literal
reading of the bare text and focused on examination of aspects like surrounding
context, progression throughout the area, and international policies set up in
place.[23] Here, the initial purpose of Section
377 was to criminalise sexual acts that were against the order of nature, such
as rape, sodomy, beastiality, and many more. With time, however, the clause was
interpreted in such a way that it resulted in criminalising consensual
intercourse between same-sex adults. The court was of the opinion that the
purposeful rule rendered this application of the provision illegal because it
went against the fundamental intent of the drafters. In classifying homosexual
intercourse as not an act that is 'against the order of nature" or
"carnal intercourse," the court relied on various medical reports
that were ignored in the previous judgement, which explicitly stated that a
particular sexual preference is not a mental illness.
An essential tenet in the realm of
statutory interpretation is the contextual rule of interpretation, which puts
emphasis on the context (social or otherwise), intention, and overall
background of the provision when interpreting its application. This rule is
especially crucial when dealing with ancient provisions that were penned down
in a very different setting as compared to today's modern, democratic Indian
society. It also aids in preventing an interpretation that is in conflict with
the basic liberties envisaged for a person, like the ideals of equality and
freedom of expression. It has the effect of eliminating the elements of
systematic oppression or prejudice that were prevalent in Victorian times[24]. Similarly, the courts, while
determining the validity of Section 377, which was passed in 1861, observed
that the provision is reflective of the social and political setting and the
Victorian values prevalent at that time. This does not, however, resonate with
the social setting today: a provision where no difference is made between
public and private acts or consentual or non-consensual acts without any
consideration to the age, consent, nature of the act, or extent of the harm
caused.
Moreover, the error committed by the
High Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation was rectified through the
proper application of the doctrine of severability. As previously stated in the
paper, the doctrine of severability is critical when dealing with the
constitutionality of a specific provision in the context of presumptions of
constitutionality and constitutional morality. There needs to be substantial
evidence when ruling the invalidation of a provision on the basis of a
violation of fundamental rights in Articles 14, 19, and 21. Here, the Supreme
Courts took into account the elements of error in classification and analysed
the provision relying on the NALSA judgement and the Puttaswamy judgement in
determining whether sexual orientation is an integral part of a human. Not
limiting to that, the court engaged in a dialogue under the Principle of
Yogyakarta on the sexual orientation and gender identification of an individual
and the 1957 U.K. Wolfenden Committee Report, invalidating the section[25] and stating that:
"Intimacy between consenting adults of
the same sex is beyond the legitimate interests of the state," and sodomy
laws violate the right to equality under Article 14 and Article 15 of the
Constitution by targeting a segment of the population for their sexual
orientation."[26]
Often there is a presupposition of
strict construction in the interpretation of penal statutes; however, the main
aim of this is to avoid unnecessary criminalization. This strategy is not
applicable when the constitutionality of the penal provision itself is
challenged, which calls for a more holistic and liberal approach to
interpretation. Therefore, in conclusion, the Supreme Court utilised very
efficiently crucial principles and interpretation techniques to deliver a
judgement that was not only just and fair but also took a step towards a
positive social change and celebrated and, more importantly, respected each person's
individuality. The Supreme Court's series of cases highlights the extent of the
influence of proper judicial reasoning and the need for a variety of rules of
interpretation in a country where almost all of the provisions were drafted in
the Victorian era for a different archaic India, which does not resonate with
the notions of morality and justice found now. Proper judicial reasoning and
interpretation are not only beneficial for making the law dynamic but also a
building block for social change.[27]
IV) THE WAY FORWARD (CONCLUSION)
So, concluding with the words of Wendell Phillips,
"Statutes are mere milestones,
telling how far yesterday's thought had travelled, and the talk of the sidewalk
today is the law of the land. With us, law is nothing unless close behind it
stands a warm, living public opinion.”[28]
The
journey from the Naz Foundation to Navtej Singh Johar took five long years to
rectify the error in interpretation and is one of the proudest moments of the
Indian judiciary. It marked a victory for emancipation and liberation. However,
this judgement can in no way be seen as a cure-all potion unless the judges are
willing to adopt it with a liberal view and only interpret draconian laws with
an emphasis on the welfare of the citizens and conduct an in-depth study of the
social, historical, and contextual factors. The judgement given in Navtej Singh
Johar has famously stated that "history owes LGBTQ people an apology"[29].
But the bigger question that is to be asked here is: who are these historical
figures? Are they the original drafters of the Constitution? No, because the
essence of the Constitution has been and will continue to promote the idea of
equality regardless of a person's choices or preferences. This circles back to
the judiciary and legal interpreters, who not only miserably failed in
identifying the blatant injustice and inequality brought about by the
application of Section 377 but also justified their stance by hiding behind the
curtains of "public morality". This is not to say that the
invalidation of Section 377 wasn't a significant step inching India closer to
the models of equality and freedom of expression. But, given the immense
responsibility of gearing social change and the dynamic nature of society, the
judiciary should be extremely cautious while dealing with the interpretation of
provisions that affect society because there is a very narrow leeway for the
errors committed by the legal interpreters. The job of the judiciary is not
limited to the application of law, but while applying the law, it is extremely crucial that
they go forward with the right mindset and apply the correct means to reach a
judgement.[30][31]
[1] Article 377- Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5,
2023, from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836974/
[2] Journal of the
Indian Law Institute - JSTOR. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950868
[5] Reference- The
quality of mercy, strained: Compassion, empathy and other ... (n.d.). Retrieved
April 5, 2023, from http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/8E21EC86-94D8-436A-8EBE-3BE1A56D261C.pdf
[6] Angels,
Bhardwaj, A., Pattnaik, P., & Shamsuddin. (2019, March 16). Suresh Kumar
Kaushal vs. Naz Foundation: A critical analysis. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/suresh-kumar-koushal-vs-naz-foundation-critical-analysis/
[7] Suresh Kumar
Koushal V/s Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023,
from https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9088-suresh-kumar-koushal-v-s-naz-foundation-2014-1-scc-1.html
[8] Gadamer/statutory
interpretation: 7 : Gadamer and Law: William N. Es. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5,
2023, from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315093765-7/gadamer-statutory-interpretation-william-eskridge
[9] Malpas, J.
(2022, August 22). Hans-Georg Gadamer. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/
[10] Able to
identify as Comparative Constitutional analysis through Choudhry, S. (2010,
June 14). Globalization in search of justification: Toward a theory of
comparative constitutional interpretation. Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1624070
[11]The analysis
of the judgement was done through the official documents of the case
andLearning from Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation through Introspection,
Inclusion, and Intersectionality: Suggestions from within Indian Queer Justice
Movements. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://heinonline.org/HOL/Welcome
[12] Galanter, M.,
& Ram, V. (n.d.). Suo motu intervention and the Indian Judiciary (Chapter
4) - A qualified hope. Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/qualified-hope/suo-motu-intervention-and-the-indian-judiciary/F1B7C8F9D4293703D56B061560C630D0
[13] The
interpretation of statutes, by Vepa P. Sarathi. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6,
2023, from http://link.law.upenn.edu/portal/The-interpretation-of-statutes-by-Vepa-P./IULmDte27XU/
[14] Saxena, N.
(2013, December 15). Demystifying the naz verdict: Where did the courts go
wrong? Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://lawlex.org/lex-pedia/demystifying-the-naz-verdict-where-did-the-courts-go-wrong/8833
[15] Analysis of
the judgement was made through the official case documents and Koushal v. Naz
Foundation. (2021, July 06). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/koushal-v-naz-foundation/
[16] Maxwell, P.,
& Langan, P. (1969, January 01). Maxwell on the interpretation of statutes.
/: Sir Peter Benson Maxwell. Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/57688
[17] Importance of
Statutorty Interpretation was skulled out through a joint reading of various
articles in the course manual including Statutory interpretation as practical
reasoning - Yale university. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3829/
[18] Reference-
Saxena, N. (2013, December 15). Demystifying the naz verdict: Where did the
courts go wrong? Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://lawlex.org/lex-pedia/demystifying-the-naz-verdict-where-did-the-courts-go-wrong/8833
[19] Analysis of
the judgement was made through the official case documents and Koushal v. Naz
Foundation. (2021, July 06). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/koushal-v-naz-foundation/
[20] Content by
author. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/author/rishika-sahgal/
[21] Navtej Singh
Johar v. Union of India - International Journal of Law ... (n.d.). Retrieved
April 6, 2023, from https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india/
[22] G P Singh
interpretation of statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.scribd.com/document/535409727/G-P-Singh-Interpretation-of-Statutes
[23] G P Singh
interpretation of statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.scribd.com/document/535409727/G-P-Singh-Interpretation-of-Statutes
[24] G P Singh
interpretation of statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.scribd.com/document/535409727/G-P-Singh-Interpretation-of-Statutes
[25] Choudhry, S.
(2010, June 14). Globalization in search of justification: Toward a theory of
comparative constitutional interpretation. Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1624070
[26] The entire
judgement analysis is done through looking at the official case documents and
from Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. (2018, November 27). Retrieved April
6, 2023, from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-india/ and Ambade,
A. (2020, July 23). Case summary: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India Thr.
secretary ministry of law and justice. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india-thr-secretary-ministry-of-law-and-justice/25100
[27] Lexis nexis's
principles of statutory interpretation by G P Singh - 15th edition 2021. (2022,
February 03). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.bharatilawhouse.com/product/lexis-nexiss-principles-of-statutory-interpretation-by-g-p-singh-15th-edition-2021-9789391211028/
[28] Wendell
Phillips quote. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1237224?ref=statutes
[30] Navtej Singh
Johan and others v union of india: Supreme Court's moment of atonement. (2022,
October 28). Retrieved April 5, 2023, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/my-tryst-with-law/navtej-singh-johan-and-others-v-union-of-india-supreme-courts-moment-of-atonement-46075/
[31] Morrison, A.
(2012, October 06). The law is a fractal: The attempt to anticipate everything.
Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2157804
Article Information
THE ROLE OF INTERPRETATION IN SOCIAL CHANGE: DECRIMINALISATION OF SECTION 377 IPC
Authors: VIDHI SANTOSH RANE
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/07/03
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.