https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170267 Section 377 IPC was analysed as a penal provision regulating conduct rather than targeting a protected identity. The Court held that this distinction defeated the Article 14 and 15 challenge, since the law did not create an unconstitutional classification on its face. It also accepted that privacy, dignity and autonomy are protected under Article 21 but found no clear constitutional violation because the provision criminalised acts, not orientation. The Court further held that the phrase "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" had a workable judicial meaning, and that alleged misuse or overbreadth did not by itself invalidate an otherwise constitutionally valid law. en-us Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170267 Section 377 IPC was analysed as a penal provision regulating conduct rather than targeting a protected identity. The Court held that this distinction defeated the Article 14 and 15 challenge, since the law did not create an unconstitutional classification on its face. It also accepted that privacy, dignity and autonomy are protected under Article 21 but found no clear constitutional violation because the provision criminalised acts, not orientation. The Court further held that the phrase "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" had a workable judicial meaning, and that alleged misuse or overbreadth did not by itself invalidate an otherwise constitutionally valid law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170267