Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE...
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE - 2018 6 Supreme 577 : Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as it penalizes any consensual sexual activity between two adults, be it homosexuals (man and a man), heterosexuals (man and a woman) and lesbians (woman and a woman), is unconstitutional. This means that consensual sex between adults in private is not an offence under Indian law.Checking relevance for National Legal Services Authority VS Union of India...
National Legal Services Authority VS Union of India - 2014 3 Supreme 66 : The Yogyakarta Principles, endorsed by United Nations bodies and human rights organizations, explicitly state that States must repeal all laws that criminalise consensual sexual activity among persons of the same sex who are over the age of consent. Principle 2B further mandates that an equal age of consent applies to both same-sex and different-sex sexual activity. This establishes that consensual sex between adults is not an offence under international human rights law, and states have a duty to ensure such conduct is not criminalised.Checking relevance for X VS Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi...
X VS Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 991 : Consensual sexual activity by minors is not an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and such activity should not be criminalized. The law recognizes that adolescents may engage in consensual sexual activity, and the interpretation of the MTP Act and POCSO Act must be harmonized to ensure that minors are not deterred from seeking safe medical termination of pregnancy due to fear of legal consequences. The obligation of a Registered Medical Practitioner under Section 19(1) of POCSO Act to report offences does not require disclosure of the minor''''s identity, which helps protect the minor''''s right to access reproductive healthcare without fear of stigma or punishment.Checking relevance for Probhat Purkait @ Provat VS State of West Bengal...
Probhat Purkait @ Provat VS State of West Bengal - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1506 : The court held that the relationship was non-exploitative and consensual, asserting that socio-economic realities must be considered in such cases; therefore, the conviction was not justified. The appellant’s conviction was overturned, establishing that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of kidnapping and coercion. The court emphasized that the relationship was not one of exploitation or coercion, and that consent, particularly in the context of adolescent relationships, must be evaluated in light of socio-economic circumstances. This indicates that, under certain conditions, consensual sexual relations between adolescents may not constitute an offence if there is no coercion, exploitation, or lack of agency.Checking relevance for RIT Foundation vs Union of India...
Checking relevance for RIT Foundation VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Tino Thankachan S/o Thankachan VS State of Kerala...
Tino Thankachan S/o Thankachan VS State of Kerala - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 993 : Consensual sexual intercourse between a married woman and another man, even if induced by a promise of marriage, does not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as the promise of marriage to a married woman is unenforceable and illegal under law, and thus cannot form the basis for prosecution. The court held that no question of a promise to marry arises in such cases because the victim knew that a legal marriage with the accused was not possible under the law.
