Correct option is C
The correct option is (c) Freedom to have same sex relationships.
Explanation:
In the landmark case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India unanimously overruled its own 2013 judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation.
- In Suresh Koushal (2013): The Supreme Court had overturned a Delhi High Court ruling and reinstated Section 377 of the IPC, effectively re-criminalizing consensual same-sex acts. The court had argued that the LGBTQ+ community was a "minuscule minority" and it was up to Parliament to change the law.
- In Navtej Singh Johar (2018): The Supreme Court corrected this, stating that the 2013 decision was "arbitrary" and "legally unsustainable." The court held that Section 377, in so far as it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults in private, violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Information Booster:
- Section 377 IPC: A colonial-era law that criminalized "unnatural offences," which included consensual same-sex relationships.
- Constitutional Morality: In this judgment, the Court emphasized "Constitutional Morality" over "Social Morality," stating that the rights of a minority cannot be suppressed by the views of the majority.
- Doctrine of Progressive Interpretation: The Court used this doctrine to explain that the Constitution is a "living document" and its interpretation must evolve with changing social values.
Additional Knowledge:
| Option | Case Reference | Why it's often confused |
| (a) Right to die | Common Cause (2018) | This also involved an overruling (of Gian Kaur, 1996). However, Navtej Johar is a more frequent example of "correcting" a recent judicial error. |
| (b) Sabarimala Temple | Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018) | This was a fresh interpretation of the conflict between individual liberty (Article 25) and denominational rights (Article 26), rather than an overruling of a specific past SC case. |
| (d) Triple Talaq | Shayara Bano (2017) | The Court declared the practice "unconstitutional" because it was not an essential religious practice. It didn't overrule a prior SC judgment but rather set aside a long-standing personal law practice. |