Section 377 verdict LIVE updates: A Supreme Court constitution bench on Thursday pronounced a unanimous verdict scrapping Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises ‘unnatural sex’. Chief Justice Dipak Misra noted that majoritarian views and popular morality cannot dictate constitutional rights.

Auto refresh feeds

"We are solely on consensual acts between man-man, man-woman. Consent is the fulcrum here. You cannot impose your sexual orientation on others without their consent," the top court had said.

The Supreme Court had attached importance to the consent of individuals on matters of sexual intercourse and sexuality. In a previous hearing, the constitutional bench had indicated that the court will uphold the concept of consent of individuals in its decision.

'Consent' likely to be fulcrum of SC ruling on Section 377

"If Section 377 of the IPC goes away entirely, there will be anarchy," the Supreme Court had said while allaying apprehensions of those opposed to the decriminalisation of the penal provision.

had made clear that it may not strike down the law completely and deal with it to the extent it relates to consensual acts between two adults.

SC unlikely to completely strike down controversial law, may provide relief to consensual gay partners

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing the matter and had reserved its verdict on 17 July after hearing various stakeholders for four days, including gay rights activists. The bench also comprised Justices R F Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. Of the five judges, only Justice Khanwilkar hasn't authored a judgment, while all the other judges have authored different judgments.

Who are the judges who wrote the much-awaited judgment?

"It is our duty to strike a law the moment we find a law in conflict with fundamental rights. We don't leave it to the majoritarian government, which may or may or act" given the exigencies of its vote bank politics, the constitution bench had said. "The moment we are convinced that a law is violative of the fundamental rights we will strike it down and not relegate it to a legislature," the court had said.

"We would not wait for the majoritarian government to enact, amend or not to enact any law to deal with violations of fundamental rights," the bench had said while reserving its verdict.

The Supreme Court had said that it will not wait for a 'majoritarian government to strike down a law that clearly challenges the Fundamental Rights of citizens.

Can't wait for majoritarian govt to form legislation, will strike down laws that suppress Fundamental rights: SC

Four of five judges — CJI Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra — have authored separate judgments while Justice Khanwilakar has chosen to concur with one of the judges. This means that in case the judges disagree, it may take us some time to pronounce the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, we would continue collating updates on reactions from the members of the trans and queer community, opinions from constitutional experts, and sections of individual judges' judgments.

Readers' discretion is advised as final verdict may take time to come out

Justice Chandrachud rejecting the contention had said that the cause of the sexually transmitted diseases was not sexual intercourse but unprotected sex.

Unimpressed by the submission, Justice Nariman had said that there would be "no cascading effect" as all such references in other statutes will get deleted.

An earlier hearing saw the Constitution bench disagreeing with some of the respondents telling it that decriminalizing the same sex relationship amongst the LGBT community would have a cascading effect on other statutes including the personnel laws and the spread of dreaded diseases like HIV and AIDS.

Activists, and the Naz Foundation who ws the petitioner in the case, decried the judgment and claimed the Supreme Court had pushed them back a 100 years back in their fight for equal rights.

Supreme Court - The judiciary's reformist views as revealed in several observations made during the course of hearing are more recent. In 2013 , a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadaya overturned a Delhi HC judgment scrapping down the criminality clause in the archaic law. The bench had defended the decision citing low prosecution rates, miniscule population of LGBTQ community, and the Parliament's failure to come up with a law to this effect.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing the matter and had reserved its verdict on 17 July after hearing various stakeholders for four days, including gay rights activists. The bench also comprised Justices R F Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. Of the five judges, only Justice Khanwilkar hasn't authored a judgment, while all the other judges have authored different judgments.

This ensured that the fight for different sexual identities gained a legal recognition, thereby oaving way for the argument that if a person has the right to chose their gender, they also have the freedom to chose their sexual orientation.

In the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs Union of India case. In the NALSA judgment, the bench, consisting of justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri, broke down the heteronormative, binary gender constructs of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and affirmed that the transgender community also enjoys the same rights under the constitution. In the 2014 judgment, the court for the first time held that the transgender community has a right to a distinct 'third geder' under the right to dignity and life as defined under the Constitution.

Various surveys and medical reports have highlighted that sodomy in prison cells and sexual assault of men is commoner than we would like to think. If the Supreme Court strikes down the Section 377, it may even open up debate for legal recourse for male sexual assault victim, apart from restoring the dignity and rights of gay couples.

Speaking to The Indian Express , Johar's partner Sunil Mehra said, “We had to make a point that this is not just a matter of omission of law, there is a human cost involved. We exist.”

Navtej Johar of Navtej Johar vs the Union of India case said that the Supreme Court ruling of 2013, which justified upholding the discriminatory law because LGBTQ community constitutes a 'miniscule' section of the populace was what drove him to file a review petition.

SC regarding LGBTQ as minuscule section of population drove us to challenge 2013 order, says one of petitioners

The Centre, which had initially sought adjournment for filing its response to the petitions, had left to the wisdom of the court the issue of legality of the penal provision on the aspects of criminalising consensual unnatural sex between two consenting adults. It had said that the other aspects of the penal provision dealing with minors and animals should be allowed to remain in the statute book.

'I'm also a human being,' says hotelier Keshav Suri on LGBTQ rights and Section 377

Latest reports have said that the Supreme Court verdict will be delayed at least by 30 minutes. CNN-News18 reported that the verdict is expected at around 11.15 am instead of 10.30 because of the full court reference in memory of two senior advocates.

A resource guide titled ‘Creating Inclusive Workplaces for LGBT Employees in India’, created by Google, IBM, Goldman Sachs and Community Business last year, records that the LGBTQ community makes up about 5 to 10 percent of India Inc's workforce. Around 80 percent of them report discrimination in the form of homophobic comments, gestures, actions or even physical threats and violence.

The World Bank estimates that homophobia costs India $31 billion a year due to lower educational achievements, loss of labor productivity and the added costs of providing healthcare to LGBT people who are poor, stressed, suicidal or HIV positive, Reuters reported.

In a 2016 survey of 100 Indian LGBT employees, the Mission for Indian Gay and Lesbian Empowerment (MINGLE), an advocacy group, found that 40 percent had been harassed at work and the majority were not covered by LGBT workplace protection policies.

"The society never has nor will it accept the LGBTQ community. We will not let the "social fabric of the nation be destroyed," said Ajay Gautam, founder, Hum Hindu said ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling.

“My family disowned me after I came out to the world. It was not because I was homosexual, they knew about that for years. They only reacted when I told the world,” Gohil told News18 .

Manavendra Singh Gohil, better known as Prince Manavedra, the world’s first openly gay member of royalty spoke to News18 about the upcoming Supreme Court verdict. He said that the reading down of Section 377 has been long overdue. "Making someone’s sexual preference in bed a crime is not just unfair, it’s also unconstitutional according to the fundamental rights we are ensured as Indian citizens,” he said.

My family disowned me after I came out to the world, says world's first openly gay member of royal family

"I’m saying in future, fundamental rights here could be used for other things… like property rights. Please make sure that what you write in your judgment, you don’t say anything here which can be construed in future for anything like this,” additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the court.

A report in The Wire quoted to the proceedings in the court during a previous hearing. The Centre was apparently worried that if given legal recognition the members of the LGBTQ will demand other rights as well, including wealth, inheritance, adoption, compulsory employment and maintenance.

The five-judge Constitution bench will assemble at 11.30 am and will start reading out the court's judgment. The majority ruling will decide whether the constitutional validity of section 377 of the IPC can be upheld.

While many businesses around the world are starting to recognize the benefits of including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people, most countries do not provide any legal protection against workplace discrimination.

“For a transgender person, it becomes a lot more difficult because they are visibly different, they cannot put their appearance behind them.”

"Trans women and effeminate men are harassed most because ours is a very patriarchal society,” said Suresh Ramdas, who heads the LGBT support group for Hewlett-Packard, the world’s largest personal computer maker, in India.

According to a report in Reuters , that confusion over the law in India has made many employers fearful of hiring LGBT candidates, experts say, as they believe being LGBT is a crime, rather than just certain sexual acts.

The five-judge Constitution bench has assembled in court and the judgment will be read out shortly. The majority ruling will decide whether the constitutional validity of section 377 of the IPC can be upheld.

According to reports from the courtroom, the judges have come out with a concurring judgment. Four judges, CJI Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, have authored separate judgments while Justice Khanwilakar has chosen to concur with Misra.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra has started reading out on behalf of himself and Justice Khanwilkar. Misra spoke about importance of individual identity with dignity, individual autonomy and equality for all without discrimination are cardinal corners of our constitution.

CJI Misra says LGBTQ community has the same fundamental rights as citizen

However, sexual activity with animals and other related clauses in Section 377 will remain criminal. Any act without consent of any one of the partners would still invoke Criminality under 377

Clauses of Section 377 that criminalised consensual sex between adults have been struck down by the Supreme Court. A constitutional bench concurred that this section of the law cannot be regarded as constitutional.

For a long time, the LGBTQ community has been trapped in the debate of individual versus larger community. This verdict will finally change the landscape of human rights of the community in India. However, it is important to understand that a declaration of rights is only first step. For substantive equality it is imperative to set up structural changes in policy so that changes can happen on the ground.

"Rights of the last man should also be preserved by the courts. Progressive interpretation of constitution and progressive realization of rights. The previous judgment was incorrect."

Reading out the judgment, the Supreme Court struck down its previous judgment upholding the criminality clause. The court said, "Privacy is a fundamental right under the Puttaswamy case (Right to Privacy ruling)." The court also recognised that the logic that since LGBTQ community only forms a 'minuscule' part of the population is incorrect.

"Sexual orientation is one of many biological phenomena which are described as natural and inherent. They are considered part of freedom of expression. Constitutional morality urges the organs of the State including judiciary to protect heterogeneity and prevent imposition of popular perception on the minority. The fundamental rights of even a single individual cannot be infringed upon," the court read.

Any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is violation of fundamental rights: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India should take all measures to properly broadcast the fact that homosexuality is not a criminal offence to create public awareness and eliminate the stigma members of the community have to face. Te court also asked that the police force should be given be periodic training to sensitise them about the issue.

Supreme Court directs govt to ensure proper broadcast of judgment, says police should be sensitised

"Sexual orientation is a natural phenomenon. Any discrimination on this basis is violative of the Constitution. Any individual has sovereignty over his/her body... Many sections continue to suffer exclusions due to stereotypes... We can’t call ourselves a developed society unless they are freed from these shackles.. LGBTQ community is no different they possess same rights as others. Sustenance of one's identity is a filament of life, someone's sexuality cannot be criminalised in a free society."

Every individual has sovereignty over his body: Supreme Court upholds basic civil rights of sexual minorities

"The Constitution protects the fluidity in sexual relations. With regard to sexuality and health, it is important to recognize the difference between individual rights and conduct that harms others (non-consensual sex). Every individual has sovereignty over their body and sexual orientations are defined by natural instincts. Counselling practice will have to focus on de-stigmatising homosexuality, that reflects current medical opinion."

In view of the findings, in so far as consensual sex between adults is criminalized, the article is struck down. (Under Articles 14, 19, 21) Consent must mean free consent."

"History owes the members of this community redressal for past persecution and ignorance of the majority. This sction infringed on right against discrimination under Article 15, and privacy under Article 21.

We are here We are queer Down with normativities of all kinds! A luta continua

LABIA (queer feminist LBT collective) released an open letter on the Section 377 judgment. The group along with several other organistaions has called for a public meet to celebrate the judgment and discuss with regard to the arrests of human rights defenders.

Over the years, the mindset has changed and it’s time indeed that Section 377 was scrapped. It’s not even an Indian construct! It is a Victorian relic, and reflects a colonial mindset. Section 377 should have left when the British left our country, it should have ended with the end of their oppressive and inhumane rule. Section 377 has now been thrown in the bin — which is where it belongs. It violated the fundamental rights of millions of Indians — rights the Constitution promises all the citizens of this great country.

This (the SC decision) is the first step. There is a lot more to do such as including LGBT members under non-discriminatory clauses, recognising gay marriage etc. have to be taken up. Society has to accept it. It will take time. Take women's rights for example, it has taken so many years, yet we are not there 100 per cent. Now at least there is a legal framework," Sathawane, who was the first gay Indian to get married to his partner said.

"When I came out to my parents in the early 2000s, my family took me to a psychiatrist for evaluation. I told the psychiatrist, you must be an idiot. If you even attempt to give me shock therapy, I'll take you to court. But there are several others in the country who faced immense discrimination.

Feels like burden of shame lifted for people of community: Hrishi Sathawane on Supreme Court verdict

"Human instinct to love has been constrained. Section 377 is based on deep-rooted gender stereotypes. It is a majoritarian impulse to subjugate a sexual minority to live in silence," the court said in its ruling.

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a completely natural condition, the Supreme Court observed today during the judgment of Section 377. The apex court said that the society cannot dictate sexual relationship between consenting adults as it a private affair. Justice Chandrachud said that the denial of right to sexual orientation is akin to denial of right to privacy.

"Human instinct to love has been constrained. Section 377 is based on deep-rooted gender stereotypes. It is a majoritarian impulse to subjugate a sexual minority to live in silence," the court said in its ruling.

Alex Mathews (from Bengaluru), who identifies as gay, and is also a drag queen going by the name, Mayamma, says "When I heard the verdict, I just started crying. I just couldn't stop the tears because it was the whole hurt that I went through.. it's just... I had to let it out. I'm glad that it is over. Earlier there was a point where I was scared to even hold a guy's hand in public, now at least I can do that. I mean, I don't know if we are that progressive to indulge in PDA like that, but slowly, we're taking baby steps.

After the Right to Privacy judgment, this judgment was excepted. Consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in NALSA and the Right to Privacy case resulted in Supreme Court's 2013 ruling being an anomaly. It is great that the anomaly has been resolved.

Besides, the issue remains that they still have no legal production from innate discrimination at workplace, especially in the private sector. Then there are the social constraints and the stigma attached to it.

The decriminalisation of Section 377 is a baby step in the direction of guaranteeing equal rights to the members of LGBTQ community. While the government has been advised to broadcast the judgment and sensitise law enforcing agencies, precedents show we have been slow in catching up to the civil rights of the minorities.

De-criminalisation of Section 377 is but the first step

"He gave me food and we bonded well. We went to fairs as well. That day when the sting happened we were supposed to go for numaish – but our life became a mela – movies have been made, discussions have happened on TV, I feel I have been stripped of everything. Our story was consumed," said Irfan.

Recalling the episode eight years later, Irfan says he was harassed and hounded like a criminal. “Out of frustration I set myself on fire but I was saved by my family at the right time. All these years I was vulnerable and subject to biases – people called me gay, or said ‘oh he was with Siras.’”

“I was his partner. Will I be treated as that after the new verdict? Now that it is decriminalised, will I get my rights as his partner?” Irfan asks speaking to News18 .

Another BJP leader had said at the time that provincial India would not be persuaded by the argument that same sex was rooted in Hindu culture and mythology. “India is largely status-quoist. Fiction is fiction, the reality is different,” he said.

BJP's Rajnath Singh, in 2013 had openly supported the Section 377 while terming homosexuality unnatural. "We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported," Singh told The Telegraph in 2013.

So far there have been no reactions from the BJP on the Supreme Court verdict that came today.

"Human instinct to love has been constrained. Section 377 is based on deep-rooted gender stereotypes. It is a majoritarian impulse to subjugate a sexual minority to live in silence," the court said in its ruling.

Delhi: Celebrations at The Lalit hotel after Supreme Court legalises homosexuality. Keshav Suri, the executive director of Lalit Group of hotels is a prominent LGBT activist. pic.twitter.com/uncvvgtSfv

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a completely natural condition, the Supreme Court observed today during the judgment of Section 377. The apex court said that the society cannot dictate sexual relationship between consenting adults as it a private affair. Justice Chandrachud said that the denial of right to sexual orientation is akin to denial of right to privacy.

"Human instinct to love has been constrained. Section 377 is based on deep-rooted gender stereotypes. It is a majoritarian impulse to subjugate a sexual minority to live in silence," the court said in its ruling.

Alex Mathews (from Bengaluru), who identifies as gay, and is also a drag queen going by the name, Mayamma, says "When I heard the verdict, I just started crying. I just couldn't stop the tears because it was the whole hurt that I went through.. it's just... I had to let it out. I'm glad that it is over. Earlier there was a point where I was scared to even hold a guy's hand in public, now at least I can do that. I mean, I don't know if we are that progressive to indulge in PDA like that, but slowly, we're taking baby steps.

After the Right to Privacy judgment, this judgment was excepted. Consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in NALSA and the Right to Privacy case resulted in Supreme Court's 2013 ruling being an anomaly. It is great that the anomaly has been resolved.

Besides, the issue remains that they still have no legal production from innate discrimination at workplace, especially in the private sector. Then there are the social constraints and the stigma attached to it.

The decriminalisation of Section 377 is a baby step in the direction of guaranteeing equal rights to the members of LGBTQ community. While the government has been advised to broadcast the judgment and sensitise law enforcing agencies, precedents show we have been slow in catching up to the civil rights of the minorities.

De-criminalisation of Section 377 is but the first step

"He gave me food and we bonded well. We went to fairs as well. That day when the sting happened we were supposed to go for numaish – but our life became a mela – movies have been made, discussions have happened on TV, I feel I have been stripped of everything. Our story was consumed," said Irfan.

Recalling the episode eight years later, Irfan says he was harassed and hounded like a criminal. “Out of frustration I set myself on fire but I was saved by my family at the right time. All these years I was vulnerable and subject to biases – people called me gay, or said ‘oh he was with Siras.’”

“I was his partner. Will I be treated as that after the new verdict? Now that it is decriminalised, will I get my rights as his partner?” Irfan asks speaking to News18 .

Another BJP leader had said at the time that provincial India would not be persuaded by the argument that same sex was rooted in Hindu culture and mythology. “India is largely status-quoist. Fiction is fiction, the reality is different,” he said.

BJP's Rajnath Singh, in 2013 had openly supported the Section 377 while terming homosexuality unnatural. "We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported," Singh told The Telegraph in 2013.

So far there have been no reactions from the BJP on the Supreme Court verdict that came today.



Section 377 verdict LATEST updates: The RSS has put out a statement saying that it does not believe that homosexuality is a criminal offence but its not natural. "The Indian society did not accept such relations and this issue needs a social and psycological solution," it said.

"Human instinct to love has been constrained. Section 377 is based on deep-rooted gender stereotypes. It is a majoritarian impulse to subjugate a sexual minority to live in silence," the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

A Supreme Court constitution bench on Thursday pronounced a unanimous verdict scrapping Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises ‘unnatural sex’. Chief Justice Dipak Misra noted that majoritarian views and popular morality cannot dictate constitutional rights.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chadrachud and Indu Malhotra had reserved its verdict on July 17 after hearing various stakeholders, including LGBTQIA+ rights activists, over four days.

Here are the main conclusions made by the Supreme Court:

1. NALSA - rights recognized including life with dignity. In the same vein, at the core of identity, lies self determination.

2. Suresh Koushal overturned Naz foundation by taking the ground that LGBTQ is a miniscule part of the population and mere scope of abuse. Such a view is constitutionally impermissible

3. The role of Courts are more important when rights affected are of a minority subject to historical discrimination.

4. Transformative Constitution- interpretation should not be literal. Should reflect intent and purpose, in consonance with changing times.

5. Constitutional morality urges the organs of the State including judiciary to protect heterogeneity and prevent imposition of popular perception on the minority. The fundamental rights of even a single individual cannot be infridged upon

The five-judge Constitution bench has assembled in court and the judgment will be read out shortly. The majority ruling will decide whether the constitutional validity of section 377 of the IPC can be upheld.

"The society never has nor will it accept the LGBTQ community. We will not let the "social fabric of the nation be destroyed," said Ajay Gautam, founder, Hum Hindu said ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Supreme Court's NALSA and Right To Privacy judgments were some landmark moments in the fight against homosexuality. While the former led the law to recognise the trans communities' right to chose their own gender, it opened a debate for homosexuals to have the right to chose their sexual orientation. Similarly, with the Supreme Court ratifying the Right To Privacy, consensual private intercourse could be argued to be a private matter of an individual.

Latest reports have said that the Supreme Court verdict will be delayed at least by 30 minutes. CNN-News18 reported that the verdict is expected at around 11.15 am instead of 10.30 because of the full court reference in memory of two senior advocates.

The Supreme Court will pronounce its much-awaited verdict on a clutch of petitions seeking decriminalisation of a 158-year-old colonial law under Section 377 of the IPC which criminalises consensual gay sex. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had reserved its verdict on 17 July after hearing various stakeholders for four days, including gay rights activists.

Various surveys and medical reports have highlighted that sodomy in prison cells and sexual assault of men is commoner than we would like to think. If the Supreme Court strikes down the Section 377, it may even open up debate for legal recourse for male sexual assault victim, apart from restoring the dignity and rights of gay couples.

The legal battle against the archaic Section 377 first started in 1994 when the AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA), a human rights activist group, filed a public interest petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377. Twenty-four years later, the Supreme Court has indicated that it may do away with the criminality clause against consenting adults.

Four of five judges — CJI Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra — have authored separate judgments while Justice Khanwilakar has chosen to concur with one of the judges.

The Supreme Court had attached importance to the consent of individuals on matters of sexual intercourse and sexuality. In a previous hearing, the constitutional bench had indicated that the court will uphold the concept of consent of individuals in its decision.

"We are solely on consensual acts between man-man, man-woman. Consent is the fulcrum here. You cannot impose your sexual orientation on others without their consent," the top court had said.

The Supreme Court will pronounce its much-awaited verdict on a clutch of petitions seeking decriminalisation of a 158-year-old colonial law under Section 377 of the IPC which criminalises consensual gay sex.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had reserved its verdict on 17 July after hearing various stakeholders for four days, including gay rights activists.

Besides the CJI, the bench also comprised Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

The apex court had asserted that courts cannot wait for a "majoritarian government" to decide on enacting, amending or striking down a law if it violates fundamental rights.

It had made clear that it may not strike down the law completely and deal with it to the extent it relates to consensual acts between two adults.

"If Section 377 of the IPC goes away entirely, there will be anarchy. We are solely on consensual acts between man-man, man-woman. Consent is the fulcrum here. You cannot impose your sexual orientation on others without their consent," the top court had said while allaying apprehensions of those opposed to the decriminalisation of the penal provision.

"We would not wait for the majoritarian government to enact, amend or not to enact any law to deal with violations of fundamental rights," the bench had said while reserving its verdict.

Section 377 refers to 'unnatural offences' and says whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

The Centre, which had initially sought adjournment for filing its response to the petitions, had later left to the wisdom of the court the issue of legality of the penal provision on the aspects of criminalising consensual unnatural sex between two consenting adults.

It had said that the other aspects of the penal provision dealing with minors and animals should be allowed to remain in the statute book.

The apex court heard the writ petitions filed by dancer Navtej Jauhar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath and Keshav Suri and business executive Ayesha Kapur and 20 former and current students of the IITs. They have sought decriminalisation of consensual sex between two consenting adults of the same sex by declaring section 377 of IPC as illegal and unconstitutional.

The issue was first raised by NGO Naaz Foundation, which had in 2001 approached the Delhi High Court which had in 2009 decriminalised sex between consenting adults of the same gender by holding the penal provision as "illegal".

This high court judgement was overturned in 2013 by the apex court which also dismissed the review plea against which the curative petitions were filed which are pending.

The top court had commenced hearing on the fresh writ petitions challenging re-criminalisation of consensual gay sex between two adults, rejecting the Centre's plea seeking postponement of the proceedings by four weeks.

At the outset of the hearing, the five-judge bench on 10 July had made it clear that it was not going into the curative petitions and would adjudicate on the fresh writ petitions in the matter.

The writ petitions were opposed by Apostolic Alliance of Churches and Utkal Christian Association and some other NGOs and individuals including Suresh Kumar Kaushal.

Kaushal had also challenged the 2009 verdict of the high court in the apex court which had restored Section 377 of IPC.