| Click here for a summary of India’s review at the second cycle and/or the third cycle. |
1st UPR session
Date of review: 10 April 2008
Date of report adoption: 23 May 2008
Document number: A/HRC/8/26
|
SUMMARY SOGIESC issues during India’s 1st UPR review |
I. SOGIESC issues/recommendations identified by NGOs
Right to privacy, marriage and family life
34. PLD [Partners for Law in Development] highlighted the petition in the High Court of New Delhi seeking judicial review of the provision which criminalizes consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex (under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code).
II. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues from the national report
No references.
III. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues by UN agencies
No references.
IV. References to SOGIESC issues during the Working Group review
67. [Sweden] stated that homosexual conduct is prohibited by the Indian Penal Code and that civil society organizations have reported discrimination of homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual persons both by agents of the State and on a general societal level. Sweden asked the Indian Government about the measures it is taking to ensure full equality before the law regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.
84. Regarding Sweden’s comments on homosexual conduct, India noted that under Section 377 of the 1860 Indian Penal Code, the concept of sexual offences “against the order of nature” was introduced. This was essentially a Western concept, which has remained over the years. The concept of homosexuality itself does not find a mention in the Indian Penal Code and it can be a matter of debate whether it is “against the order of nature”. An NGO had filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for declaring Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. The High Court’s judgment turning down the petition was challenged in the Supreme Court which has returned it to the High Court for reconsideration. The matter was referred to the Law Commission of India, which took the view that Indian society does not currently accept homosexuality as an acceptable form of behaviour. However, the matter is under the consideration of the courts in India.
V. Conclusions and/or recommendations
India did not receive any recommendations on SOGIESC issues.
VI. Further information
You will find all documents relating to India’s first review at UPR-Info and OHCHR’s websites.