DETAILS OF THE AUTHORS

Author – 1

Name : Abel Arackal

Designation : Student, II Year B.B.A., LL.B
College : Christ Academy Institute of Law, Benaluru
Address : No.179, Kapila Block, 10 A Cross, Mylandsandra,
Bettadasnapura, Bengaluru – 560 100

Author – 2

Name : Ande Keerthi Kailash Nath Babu

Designation : Student, II Year B.B.A., LL.B
College : Christ Academy Institute of Law, Benaluru
Address : R.No.506, St.Chavara Boys Hostel,
Christ Academy Junior College Back Gate,
Christ Academy Institute of Law, Begur – Koppa Road, Hullahalli,
Bengaluru – 560 083
 Beyond Borders : The Judiciary as a Catalyst for LGBTQ+
Rights in India, USA and UK

Abstract
This research examines judicial activism’s transformative role in advancing LGBTQ+ rights across
India, the USA and the UK. The judiciary has become a powerful catalyst for change when
legislative progress stalls. This comparative analysis reveals similarities and differences in judicial
approaches across these three democratic systems with distinct cultural contexts. The objectives of
this paper are to analyze landmark judicial decisions that have shaped LGBTQ+ rights in India, the
USA, and the UK and also to evaluate the effectiveness of judicial intervention versus legislative
reform in securing LGBTQ+ protections. This is important because the judiciary has been more
effective than legislative bodies in advancing LGBTQ+ rights during periods of social transition.
Existing scholarship extensively documents individual country developments but lacks
comprehensive cross-national judicial comparison. Studies by Balachandran (2020) examine India’s
transformation following the Navtej Singh Johar verdict. Williams (2022) analyzes post-Obergefell
developments in American jurisprudence. Cooper’s work (2021) traces UK judicial evolution from
criminalization to marriage equality. However, these analyses remain largely segregated by national
boundaries without sufficient comparative frameworks. While considerable research exists on
LGBTQ+ jurisprudence within individual nations, limited work compares judicial reasoning
patterns, implementation challenges and socio-legal impacts across these three influential
democracies. This study employs doctrinal research methodology, analyzing case law, constitutional
provisions, legislative histories and judicial opinions across all three jurisdictions. It evaluates
textual patterns in landmark decisions and identifies common judicial reasoning frameworks. This
research provides valuable insights for legal practitioners, policymakers, and activists by identifying
successful judicial strategies across borders. Understanding transnational judicial dialogue on
LGBTQ+ rights offers blueprints for advocacy in nations where such rights remain restricted. Initial
analysis suggests judicial decisions frequently precede legislative reforms. Courts utilize
international human rights frameworks and constitutional dignity principles across jurisdictions
despite different legal traditions. Implementation challenges persist even after favorable rulings,
especially regarding transgender rights and intersectional protections. The judiciary serves as a
crucial catalyst but cannot sustain LGBTQ+ progress alone. Sustainable change requires eventual
legislative codification and social acceptance. Transnational judicial dialogue strengthens rights
protection globally.
Keywords: LGBTQ+ rights, comparative jurisprudence, judicial activism, constitutional
interpretation, transnational rights.

1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most marginalised populations in India and around the world is the LGBTQ+
community. Because of the stigma attached to their sexual orientation or gender identity, those who
identify as LGBTQ+ experience marginalisation and discrimination. LGBTQ+ people and their
status in society are frequently mentioned in historical narratives from pre-British India. However,
the British Empire introduced the Penal Code of 1860, which contained a unique clause intended to
penalise behaviour that was thought to be against the natural order. But nothing stays the same
because of the passage of time! After the British were defeated, the Indians took over their nation,
but the LGBTQ+ community continued to experience many challenges and tragedies.

LGBTQ+ rights are fundamental human rights that guarantee equal treatment and protection to
individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. Access to healthcare,
protection from discrimination, legal approval of relationships, and the freedom to express one's
gender identity or sexual orientation without fear of violence or harassment are just a few of the
many facets of life that are covered by these rights. The significance of the judiciary to the
achievement of LGBTQ+ rights is highlighted in this article.

Judicial activism played a major role in ensuring LGBTQ people's equal rights. In the case of
“Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.,” 1 the Supreme Court declared
Section 377 of the IPC to be unconstitutional. It views agreeing to have sex with someone of the
same sex as a "unnatural offence" that violates the natural order. Ten years in prison was the
punishment.

By overturning the statute, the court actively protects LGBTQ people's rights. Judicial decisions
pertaining to LGBTQ rights have a substantial impact on social perceptions. Court decisions on
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender, despite the fact that it is unlawful, contribute
to changing public perceptions of the LGBTQ community. A precedent for recognising LGBTQ
rights in a variety of legal circumstances has been created by significant cases such as “Obergefell
v. Hodges,2” which legalised same-sex marriage in the US and paved the way for other cases.

1
Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2018 SC 4321 : MANU/SC/0947/2018 :
(2018) 10 SCC 1
2
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Regarding the historical violent anti-LGBTQ+ oppression—from police beatings and harassment of
transgender or gay persons to incarceration and death sentences for sodomy—may reveal past
trauma for LGBTQ+ people. Historical trauma may result from remembering the victims of
horrifying hate crimes, like Islan Nettles, Mark Carson, Jorge Stephen Lopez Mercado, Sakia Gunn,
Muhlaysia Booker, Matthew Shepard, and countless more. Another example of historical trauma
would be remembering the hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ+ people who died as a result of the
government's inactivity in the early phases of the HIV/AIDS tragedy. Communities gather annually
to honour the hundreds of transgender individuals who have suffered in the past due to violence.

As the principal arbiters of rights, the courts—especially the Supreme Court—are responsible for
upholding the rule of law, interpreting and implementing the Constitution, and safeguarding
fundamental rights. They act as democratic guardians, making sure that neither the government nor
any other organisation infringes on the rights of any individual. Judicial review, which gives judges
the authority to declare laws unconstitutional, supports this role.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

According to a study by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and the global research
organisation WORLD Policy Analysis Centre (WORLD), only the countries of Bolivia, Ecuador,
Fiji, Malta, and Britain provide constitutional rights to people irrespective of their sexual orientation
and gender identity. LGBT individuals do not have the same legal safeguards as other people,
despite the fact that most countries' constitutions promise protection for persons of all sexes,
religions, races, and ethnicities. According to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, no one should be
denied equal protection under the law or equality before the law while they are on Indian soil.
Article 15 forbids discrimination based only on caste, sex, religion, race, or place of birth. A
combination of these two statements makes it obvious that everyone is equal and that no one should
be treated unfairly. This includes the LGBTQ+ communities as well. Nonetheless, the Indian
Constitution presumes equality for these communities rather than stating it directly.

The rights of LGBTQ+ groups, recent research findings, and the constitutions of the various nations
retrieved from the departments' official websites are all included in the data collected for the current
study using the doctrinal approach. Primarily, the study concentrates on the judiciary's function as a
driving force behind the realisation of the rights of LGBTQ+ groups in India and other nations.
3. LANDMARK JUDICIAL DECISIONS : COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS

The judiciary has a major impact on the acceptance and legalisation of same-sex unions. In many
countries, the subject of same-sex marriage has sparked debates based on social, legal, and religious
concerns. When legislative authorities have been slow or unwilling to act to recognise LGBT rights,
their discussion and decision-making sometimes take place in the judiciary. Judicial activism,
especially through landmark rulings that have contested discriminatory laws and deeply rooted
social norms, has propelled the advancement of LGBTQ rights. The growth of LGBTQ equality,
dignity, and the elimination of discrimination in countries such as India has been greatly aided by
judicial activism. Thanks in great part to judicial activism, LGBTQ rights have progressed,
discriminatory laws and practices have been challenged, and LGBTQ people's rights and dignity
have been acknowledged. However, achieving full equality will take time, and ongoing engagement
and advocacy are required to ensure LGBTQ rights in India.

3.1. Supreme Court of India : From Koushal to Navtej to transgender

recognition

Courts have shown improvement in protecting the rights and dignity of LGBTIQA+ people in
recent years. However, neither the legal system nor the institutions have yet to adopt these
developments. People are subjected to gender and sexual orientation norms through laws, customs,
and violent acts; these standards eventually shape their identity and social interactions. In many
respects, the legal and law enforcement institutions marginalise members of the LGBTIQA+
community. This essay makes an effort to list the different ways that the legal system could be made
more inclusive to better meet the demands of the LGBTIQA+ community.

“In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 3 the primary issue was
whether or not it breaches Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution to not recognise the gender
identification of transgender people. The Supreme Court of India emphasised the constitutional
prohibition against discrimination based on gender identity and the importance of gender identity
for personal autonomy and dignity. Citing examples from other countries and international
accords, it recognised transgender individuals as a "third gender" and directed the government to
ensure their rights are respected. Relief was granted by the Court by affirming the legal status and
rights of transgender individuals. The judgment directed the government to provide legal

3
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0309/2014: 2014 INSC 275
recognition, social welfare measures, and reservations for transgender individuals, and to address
their healthcare and social challenges, with instructions for implementation within six months.”

“In 2009, the Delhi High Court, in the matter of Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi4 decriminalised
homosexuality among consenting adults. In several appeals that were eventually filed with the
Supreme Court, the Delhi decision was contested. After considering whether Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution in the Suresh Kumar
Koushal and Ors. v. Naz Foundation and Ors.,5 case, the Supreme Court of India reversed the
Delhi High Court's ruling in 2013. According to the Court, Section 377 was not unconstitutional
because there was no obvious constitutional infringement and the law was presumed to be valid.
The Court rejected the writ case filed by the NAZ Foundation and reversed the Delhi High Court's
decision that Section 377 was unconstitutional. The legislature has the power to alter or eliminate
the clause if necessary, the Court ruled. It was later recommended by the Supreme Court that the
Parliament address the matter.”

“In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 6 The Indian Supreme
Court acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental component of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Court noted that a person's right to privacy does not vanish or be given up just
because they are in a public setting; rather, it encompasses personal decisions that shape a way of
life. The decriminalisation of same-sex relationships was made possible by this articulation of the
right to privacy. In order to safeguard the rights of sexual minorities, the court came to the
conclusion that "it is imperative to widen the scope of the right to privacy to incorporate a right to
'sexual privacy'. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the US Supreme Court upheld the equality of marriage for
LGBT people, a landmark decision that the Court also cited.”

“In Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 7 according to Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, a writ petition has been filed to establish the right to sexuality, sexual
autonomy, and sexual partner choice as part of the right to life. In addition to denying the LGBT
people their rights, the petitioners argue that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
encourages discrimination and abuse against them, leaving them in a state of perpetual terror. The
individuals argue that upholding Section 377 would violate their fundamental rights, which include

4
Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1762 : MANU / DE / 0869 / 2009
5
Suresh Kumar Koushal and Ors. vs. NAZ Foundation and Ors., MANU/SC/1278/2013 : AIR 2014 SC 563 :
(2014) 1 SCC 1
6
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/1044/2017 : 2017 INSC 801
7
Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2018 SC 4321 : MANU/SC/0947/2018 :
(2018) 10 SCC 1
dignity, equality, freedom of expression, privacy, and liberty. The Supreme Court of India's five-
judge panel ruled in favour of the petitions, ruling:”
“….1. Sexual orientation is integral to the identity of the members of the LGBT
communities.
2. The impact of Section 377 has travelled far beyond criminalising certain acts. The
presence of the provision on the statute book has reinforced stereotypes about sexual
orientation. It has lent the authority of the state to the suppression of identities. The fear
of persecution has led to the closeting of same sex relationships. A penal provision has
reinforced societal disdain.
3. Sexual and gender based minorities cannot live in fear, if the Constitution has to have
meaning for them on even terms. In its quest for equality and the equal protection of the
law, the Constitution guarantees to them an equal citizenship. In de-criminalising such
conduct, the values of the Constitution assure to the LGBT community the ability to lead
a life of freedom from fear and to find fulfilment in intimate choices
4. The choice of a partner, the desire for personal intimacy and the yearning to find love
and fulfilment in human relationships have a universal appeal, straddling age and time.
In protecting consensual intimacies, the Constitution adopts a simple principle: the
state has no business to intrude into these personal matters. Nor can societal notions of
heteronormativity regulate constitutional liberties based on sexual orientation.
5. Present case has had great deal to say on the dialogue about the transformative
power of the Constitution. In addressing LGBT rights, the Constitution speaks-as well-
to the rest of society. In recognising the rights of the LGBT community, the Constitution
asserts itself as a text for governance which promotes true equality. It does so by
questioning prevailing notions about the dominance of sexes and genders
6. A hundred and fifty eight years is too long a period for the LGBT community to suffer
the indignities of denial. That it has taken sixty eight years even after the advent of the
Constitution is a sobering reminder of the unfinished task which lies ahead. It is also a
time to invoke the transformative power of the Constitution….”

“In Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.,8 despite the cases' lack of
direct relevance to the rights of the LGBTIQA+ community, the Supreme Court has made
observations that could influence future jurisprudence. Several laws are predicated on
stereotypes regarding people's gender and sexual orientation, which are typically assumed to
be heterosexual and cisgender in the legal system. More and more, the Supreme Court has

8
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors, MANU/SC/1056/2022: 2022 INSC 834
ruled that sex-based stereotypes are against Article 15 of the Constitution's guarantee of
nondiscrimination.”

3.2. US Supreme Court

“In Roberts v. United States Jaycees,9 the Supreme Court of the United States observed : “….Our
decisions have referred to constitutionally protected "freedom of association" in two distinct senses.
In one line of decisions, the Court has concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain
intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the
role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our
constitutional scheme. In this respect, freedom of association receives protection as a fundamental
element of personal liberty. In another set of decisions, the Court has recognized a right to
associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment speech,
assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion. The Constitution
guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other
individual liberties. The intrinsic and instrumental features of constitutionally protected association
may, of course, coincide….”

“In the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,10 the Supreme Court of the United States, while
evaluating the legal relevance of sex stereotyping, observed thus : “….we are beyond the day when
an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype
associated with their group, for, in forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals
because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of
men and women resulting from sex stereotypes….”

“In the case of Lawrence v. Texas,11 The U.S. Supreme Court mentioned that the decriminalisation
of homosexual sexual behaviour did not apply to minors, people who might be hurt or coerced, or
people in relationships where it might be difficult to refuse consent. It also did not address
prostitution or public behaviour, nor did it address whether the government should formally
recognise any relationship that homosexuals choose to enter. The case also involved two individuals
who engaged in sexual behaviours typical of a homosexual lifestyle with each other's complete and
informed consent, the Court added. The court decided that because the Due Process Clause gives
people the freedom to act as they please without government interference, the petitioners had a

9
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, MANU/USSC/0190/1984 : 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
10
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, MANU/USSC/0003/1989 : 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
11
Lawrence v. Texas, MANU/USSC/0070/2003 : 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
right to respect for their private lives and that the state could not control their destiny or defame
them by making their private sexual activity illegal.”

“The Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio
Department of Health, et al.,12 highlighting the plight of homosexuals, it was mentioned that, until
the mid-1900s, the state has long denounced same-sex intimacy as immoral in most Western
nations. The penal law often reflected this view, and as a result, people, including homosexuals,
were not seen as having dignity in their individual identities. According to the Court, the claim that
gays and lesbians had a right to dignity went against both the law and accepted societal standards,
especially after World War II, when there was a better awareness of the humanity and integrity of
homosexual persons. Additionally, it held that sincere statements about what was on the minds of
same-sex couples had to be kept silent. The Court also pointed out that same-sex intercourse was
still illegal in many states, that homosexuals and lesbians were targeted by the police, hindered in
their freedom to socialise, forbidden from serving in the military, and excluded under immigration
regulations.”

3.3. United Kingdom

“In Dudgeon v. United Kingdom,13 the European Court of Human Rights made the following
observations with respect to homosexuality : “…It cannot be maintained in these circumstances
that there is a "pressing social need" to make such acts criminal offences, there being no sufficient
justification provided by the risk of harm to vulnerable Sections of society requiring protection or
by the effects on the public. On the issue of proportionality, the Court considers that such
justifications as there are for retaining the law in force unamended are outweighed by the
detrimental effects which the very existence of the legislative provisions in question can have on the
life of a person of homosexual orientation like the applicant. Although members of the public who
regard homosexuality as immoral may be shocked, offended or disturbed by the commission by
others of private homosexual acts, this cannot on its own warrant the application of penal sanctions
when it is consenting adults alone who are involved….”

“In Euan Sutherland v. United Kingdom,14 the issue that came before the European Commission
of Human Rights was whether separate consent ages for homosexuals and heterosexuals—16 and
18 years old, respectively—were reasonable. In light of this, the Commission observed that there is
no objective and rational justification for keeping the minimum age of consent for male

12
Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. 576 US (2015)
13
Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, [1981] 4 EHRR 149
14
Euan Sutherland v. United Kingdom, 2001 ECHR 234
homosexuals higher than for heterosexuals, and that the application shows discriminatory
treatment in the exercise of the applicant's Article 8 right to respect for private life. The
Commission also pointed out that most boys and girls develop their sexual orientation prior to
puberty, and it cited evidence that indicated lowering the consent age would probably not affect the
majority of men who are homosexual, either in general or among specific age groups. The British
Medical Association (BMA) Council concluded in its report that the age of consent for homosexual
males should be established at 16 since the existing legislation may make it more challenging to
promote the sexual health of young men who identify as gay or bisexual. The Royal College of
Psychiatrists, the Health Education Authority, the National Association of Probation Officers, and
other groups and organisations involved in social welfare and health also supported an equal age
of consent. It is also mentioned that the vast majority of Council of Europe member states now
recognise equality of treatment with regard to the age of consent.”

3.4. Canada

“The Supreme Court of Canada, in Delwin Vriend and Ors. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of
Alberta and Ors.,15while interpreting a breach of Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, arrived at the conclusion that 'sex' includes sexual orientation. Section 15(1) of the
Charter reads thus : “….Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the
equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or physical
disability….”

“In Egan v. Canada,16 conducted its well-known test on grounds similar to those stated in the text.
According to Egan, there are two key considerations when determining whether the legal
distinction is discriminatory. determining "whether the right to equality was denied on the basis of
a personal characteristic which is either enumerated in Section 15(1) or which is analogous to
those enumerated." furthermore, "whether that distinction has the effect on the claimant of
imposing a burden, obligation, or disadvantage not imposed upon others, or of withholding or
limiting access to benefits or advantages which are available to others" (para. 132). According to
L'Heureux-Dube J., "capable of either promoting or perpetuating the view that the individual
adversely affected by this distinction is less capable, or worthy of recognition or value as a human
being or as a member of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and
consideration" is another definition of a discriminatory distinction (Egan, at para. 56). According

15
Delwin Vriend and Ors. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Ors., [1998] 1 SCR 493
16
Egan v. Canada, MANU/SCCN/0107/1995 : [1995] SCC 98
to McLachlin J., it could be appropriate to examine if the unfair treatment is the result of "the
stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics" (Miron, at para. 128).”

3.5. Other Courts / Jurisdictions

“The Constitutional Court of South Africa in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v.
Minister of Justice ("National Coalition"),17 made the following relevant observations : “….Its
symbolic effect is to state that in the eyes of our legal system all gay men are criminals. The stigma
thus attached to a significant proportion of our population is manifest. But the harm imposed by the
criminal law is far more than symbolic. As a result of the criminal offence, gay men are at risk of
arrest, prosecution and conviction of the offence of sodomy simply because they seek to engage in
sexual conduct which is part of their experience of being human. Just as apartheid legislation
rendered the lives of couples of different racial groups perpetually at risk, the sodomy offence
builds insecurity and vulnerability into the daily lives of gay men. There can be no doubt that the
existence of a law which punishes a form of sexual expression for gay men degrades and devalues
gay men in our broader society. As such it is a palpable invasion of their dignity and a breach of
Section 10 of the Constitution….”

“In Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission of Elections, 18 the Supreme Court of the Republic of
the Philippines observed : “….Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of
a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also
to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate
to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or
this Court to impose its views on the populace….”

4. JUDICIAL REASONING PATTERNS AND RIGHTS

FRAMEWORKS

In Indian LGBTQ+ rights disputes, the constitution's principles of equality, life, and dignity—as
well as the broader concept of freedom from discrimination—are frequently the focus of judicial
reasoning. The LGBTQ+ rights frameworks in India, which are based on these constitutional
principles and international human rights legislation, have resulted in significant legislative
advancements, including the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the recognition of transgender
rights.
17
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice ("National Coalition"),
MANU/SACC/0007/1998 : 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC)
18
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission of Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010.
LGBT rights are envisioned in the broader framework of fundamental and universal human rights.
The essential truths regarding the state of humans form the foundation of the human rights
paradigm. To be applicable in a range of contexts and societies, these rights are consequently
succinct, rather abstract, and broadly generalised. The fundamental argument behind this paradigm
is that it safeguards relationships and pursuits that enhance human life, preventing people from
being treated as nothing more than tools to achieve arbitrary and unnecessary ends.19

4.1. Privacy and Autonomy Arguments

When it comes to laws and policies that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, privacy and
autonomy are two of the main defences offered for their rights. To develop their identities and
relationships without social or governmental interference, people are said to require the right to
privacy. People need autonomy—the capacity to make their own decisions—in order to lead
satisfying lives and form the relationships they desire.

“Discussions concerning the history and privacy of LGBTQ+ people can and should be informed
by historical lessons. Using the lessons acquired from the HIV/AIDS pandemic, for example, we can
examine concerns regarding mandatory medical disclosures in the COVID-19 era. We have to
recognise that the gathering of medical information, at least for the LGBTQ+ community, is a very
old, stigmatised, and legally unprotected matter, from the introduction of digital contact tracing to
the requirement for medical disclosures for those who have tested positive for COVID-19.”20

4.2. Equality and non-discrimination principles

According to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 21 "many
states have improved the protection of LGBTI individuals' human rights in recent years." Among
these actions are:
 “Removing legislation that criminalises transgender individuals and decriminalising
voluntary same-sex partnerships.
19
Francis Kuriakose & Deepa Kylasam Iyer, LGBT Rights and Theoretical Perspectives, Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Politics (Oxford Univ. Press, Dec. 17, 2020),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1291
20
Katelyn Ringrose & Christopher Wood, A Look Back at the Role of Law and the Right To Privacy in LGBTQ+
History, Future of Privacy Forum (Oct. 22, 2020), https://fpf.org/blog/a-look-back-at-the-role-of-law-and-the-right-to-
privacy-in-lgbtq-history/.
21
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, About LGBTI people and human rights,
https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/about-lgbti-people-and-human-rights (last visited May
25, 2025).
  Punishing hate crimes against LGBTI people and enacting laws that expressly forbid
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics
 Outlawing harmful treatments, such as coerced and forced procedures on intersex children
and "conversion therapy," without their voluntary participation.
 Guaranteeing that transgender individuals can get identity documents that accurately
represent their gender identity without coercive demands; recognising same-sex
relationships on an equal footing with others.
 Ensuring the availability of identity documents reflecting gender identity for transgender
individuals, free from harsh requirements and based on self-determination.
 Recognising same-sex partnerships on a same footing with other
putting in place training initiatives to ensure that the LGBTI population is handled without
discrimination for law enforcement, correctional employees, educators, social workers, and
carers
 Starting anti-bullying initiatives in several schools”

4.3. Dignity as a Unifying Concept

Regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, everyone in the LGBTQ+ community aspires to
the ideal of dignity, which includes each person's inherent worth and value. It might be the first step
in promoting equality, preventing discrimination, and creating a feeling of belonging. Respect
highlights the inherent worth of LGBTQ+ individuals and their right to fair and considerate
treatment, which contrasts sharply with prejudice and discrimination. When LGBTQ+ people's
dignity is respected, their equal rights—such as the capacity to marry, adopt children, and
participate fully in society—are accepted. Because dignity recognises and values the multiplicity of
identities and experiences within the LGBTQ+ community, its members feel connected and
supported.

5. TRANSNATIONAL JUDICIAL DIALOGUE ON LGBTQ+

RIGHTS
Over the past 10 years, the decriminalisation of same-sex sexual behaviour by the courts has been a
distinctive sociolegal phenomenon that has swept the Global South. Conversely, while LGBTQ
rights have advanced, there has also been a worldwide pushback and countermobilization against
them. However, academics of legal mobilisation, comparative and international law, and doctrinal
law have not given the judicial decriminalisation phenomena, as well as the opposition and
countermobilization to decriminalisation, the attention they deserve. Transnational judicial debate
on LGBTQ+ rights involves judges, legal experts, and other relevant professionals from different
countries to promote a more consistent and rights-respecting approach to LGBTQ+ matters across
national borders. This conversation aims to bridge legal and cultural gaps, learn from different legal
systems, and influence judicial interpretations and legal reforms globally. Everyone has equal rights
and should be free from discrimination, violence, and persecution, according to the UN. This
includes LGBTQ+ individuals.

5.1. Cross-Citation Patterns between Courts

Cross-citation analysis demonstrates the influence and direction of court rulings on LGBTQ+ rights
in one jurisdiction on cases of a similar sort in other jurisdictions. This study helps us better
understand how legal theory and practice have developed within specific national or regional legal
contexts, as well as across other legal systems, including international human rights legislation.
International and regional courts, including the ECHR, can act as driving forces behind legal
reforms by setting precedents and enticing national courts to adopt them. Comparisons and insights
into different legal viewpoints are made possible by cross-citation analysis, which shows how
different legal systems address linked legal issues.

6. CONCLUSION
When examining LGBTQ+ rights in India, the US, and the UK, it is clear that judicial activism is
the primary force behind progress, often outpacing the pace of legislative reform. Historic court
decisions in all three jurisdictions have paved the way for greater LGBTQ+ inclusion, affirmed
fundamental rights, and overturned discriminatory laws. When it comes to decriminalising
homosexuality in India and the UK and establishing marriage equality in the USA, the judiciary has
frequently taken the lead. It has interpreted the principles of equality, liberty, and human dignity
found in the constitution to support sexual and gender minorities who are marginalised. This
judiciary's courage has been a powerful force behind a societal reevaluation and, in certain
situations, has compelled legislative authorities to follow suit, albeit belatedly.

The incomplete agenda for full LGBTQ+ equality is highlighted by the fact that despite these
significant gains, there are still several legal challenges to be resolved. LGBTQ+ families are in a
legal limbo because same-sex marriage and adoption rights are not recognised by the law, even
though same-sex sexual behaviour is no longer illegal in India.The limits of the judiciary's authority
are highlighted in certain areas by the Supreme Court's recent decision to send the marriage equality
issue to the legislature. The United States has national marriage equality, but a patchwork of state
laws still permit discrimination in housing, employment, and public facilities, and there is a
lingering pushback against transgender rights. The UK's recent court decisions over the definition of
"sex" under the Equality Act 2010 have raised concerns about the erosion of transgender rights, in
contrast to more general legislative advancements in areas such as marriage and civil partnerships.
Despite their transformative effect, court verdicts are not necessarily definitive or immune to
additional legal and political challenges, as these ongoing challenges demonstrate.

Legislative codification is necessary to provide full protections and consolidate rights accepted by
the courts, as demonstrated by the experiences of these three nations. Despite their ability to
interpret existing laws and establish precedents, court rulings usually lack the breadth and clarity
required to address the different types of discrimination that the LGBTQ+ population suffers.
Comprehensive anti-discrimination laws that include all protected features, including sexual
orientation and gender identity, are necessary to promote equality in the job, housing market,
healthcare system, and other crucial areas. Furthermore, legislation is needed to address gender
recognition concerns that go beyond personal identification to include legal and social integration,
as well as to recognise varied family structures including same-sex marriage and adoption rights.
The lack of robust legislative frameworks leaves rights vulnerable to shifting judicial interpretations
and the whims of political majorities.

Developing democracies may learn a lot from the history of LGBTQ+ rights in the US, UK, and
India. It highlights, first and foremost, the transformative power of an independent and activist court
in protecting the rights of minorities, particularly when the political branches are unable or hostile.
Second, it highlights that, although their importance, judicial decisions are usually just the
beginning of a prolonged struggle that culminates in legislative action, public awareness campaigns,
and tenacious lobbying in order to achieve complete and enduring equality. Thirdly, by recognising
that social and legal reform must be tailored to the political, historical, and cultural circumstances of
each country, the necessity of context-specific methods is underscored by each country's own route
and challenges. Last but not least, the ongoing debates and setbacks in even firmly established
democracies serve as a warning, demonstrating that the fight for human rights is an ongoing one
that calls for dedication to inclusive legal and social reform, intersectional solidarity, and constant
attention to detail.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission of Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010.
 Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors, MANU/SC/1056/2022: 2022
INSC 834
 Delwin Vriend and Ors. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Ors., [1998] 1
SCR 493
 Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, [1981] 4 EHRR 149
 Egan v. Canada, MANU/SCCN/0107/1995 : [1995] SCC 98
 Euan Sutherland v. United Kingdom, 2001 ECHR 234
 Francis Kuriakose & Deepa Kylasam Iyer, LGBT Rights and Theoretical Perspectives,
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (Oxford Univ. Press, Dec. 17, 2020),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1291
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/1044/2017
: 2017 INSC 801
 Katelyn Ringrose & Christopher Wood, A Look Back at the Role of Law and the Right To
Privacy in LGBTQ+ History, Future of Privacy Forum (Oct. 22, 2020),
https://fpf.org/blog/a-look-back-at-the-role-of-law-and-the-right-to-privacy-in-lgbtq-
history/.
 Lawrence v. Texas, MANU/USSC/0070/2003 : 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
 National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice ("National
Coalition"), MANU/SACC/0007/1998 : 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC)
 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0309/2014:
2014 INSC 275
 Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2018 SC 4321 :
MANU/SC/0947/2018 : (2018) 10 SCC 1
 Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1762 : MANU / DE / 0869 / 2009
 Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., 576 US (2015)
 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, MANU/USSC/0003/1989 : 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
 Roberts v. United States Jaycees, MANU/USSC/0190/1984 : 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
 Suresh Kumar Koushal and Ors. vs. NAZ Foundation and Ors., MANU/SC/1278/2013 :
AIR 2014 SC 563 : (2014) 1 SCC 1
 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, About LGBTI people
and human rights, https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/about-
lgbti-people-and-human-rights (last visited May 25, 2025).