{"id":85289,"date":"2025-06-01T03:11:07","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T03:11:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=85289"},"modified":"2025-06-01T03:11:07","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T03:11:07","slug":"the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/","title":{"rendered":"The issue, ‘whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative"},"content":{"rendered":"

The issue, ‘whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India’ was decided in which one of the following cases ?<\/p>\n

[amp_mcq option1=”Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India” option2=”Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan” option3=”Shayara Bano vs. Union of India” option4=”Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others” correct=”option4″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n
UPSC CDS-1 – 2022<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Download PDF<\/a>Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe issue of whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution was directly addressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in 2009. The High Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, was unconstitutional and violated these fundamental rights. Although this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), the Naz Foundation case was the one that first decided this specific question and held Section 377 to be violative of the mentioned articles.
\n<\/section>\n
\nThe Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2009) held Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts, as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.
\n<\/section>\n
\nShreya Singhal vs. Union of India dealt with Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan laid down guidelines on preventing sexual harassment at the workplace. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India dealt with the constitutionality of triple talaq. The Supreme Court finally decriminalized consensual homosexual acts in the Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India case in 2018, effectively affirming the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case.
\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The issue, ‘whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India’ was decided in which one of the following cases ? [amp_mcq option1=”Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India” option2=”Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan” option3=”Shayara Bano vs. Union of India” option4=”Naz Foundation vs. Government … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionThe issue, ‘whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1087],"tags":[1108,1099,1180],"class_list":["post-85289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-cds-1","tag-1108","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","tag-the-supreme-court","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\nThe issue, 'whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The issue of whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution was directly addressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in 2009. The High Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, was unconstitutional and violated these fundamental rights. Although this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), the Naz Foundation case was the one that first decided this specific question and held Section 377 to be violative of the mentioned articles. The Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2009) held Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts, as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The issue, 'whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The issue of whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution was directly addressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in 2009. The High Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, was unconstitutional and violated these fundamental rights. Although this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), the Naz Foundation case was the one that first decided this specific question and held Section 377 to be violative of the mentioned articles. The Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2009) held Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts, as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T03:11:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The issue, 'whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative","description":"The issue of whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution was directly addressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in 2009. The High Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, was unconstitutional and violated these fundamental rights. Although this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), the Naz Foundation case was the one that first decided this specific question and held Section 377 to be violative of the mentioned articles. The Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2009) held Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts, as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The issue, 'whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative","og_description":"The issue of whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution was directly addressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in 2009. The High Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, was unconstitutional and violated these fundamental rights. Although this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), the Naz Foundation case was the one that first decided this specific question and held Section 377 to be violative of the mentioned articles. The Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2009) held Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts, as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T03:11:07+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/","name":"The issue, 'whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T03:11:07+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T03:11:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The issue of whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution was directly addressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in 2009. The High Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, was unconstitutional and violated these fundamental rights. Although this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. NAZ Foundation), the Naz Foundation case was the one that first decided this specific question and held Section 377 to be violative of the mentioned articles. The Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2009) held Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual same-sex acts, as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-issue-whether-section-377-of-the-indian-penal-code-is-violative\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC CDS-1","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-cds-1\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"The issue, ‘whether Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}