Kapoor Arjun, Pathare Soumitra
Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune 411 004 India.
Centre for MH Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune 411 004 India.
Indian J Med Ethics. 2019 Apr-Jun;4(2):111-114. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2018.095. Epub 2018 Nov 26.
The Supreme Court of India recently decriminalised homosexuality by passing a landmark judgment in the case of Navtej Johar and Others v. Union of India. In its judgment, the Court held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is unconstitutional in as much as it criminalises consensual sexual acts between two adults. The Court held that Section 377 discriminates against persons of the LGBTIQ community based on their sexual orientation and violates their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The Court arrived at this conclusion after considering established principles of constitutional law, foreign precedents and expert opinions. However, a crucial part of the Court�s reasoning was based on a close reading of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Court relied on the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to observe that homosexuality is not a mental illness or mental disorder, and that LGBTIQ persons cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Court�s reading of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and Section 377 is significant as its rationale can be extended further to challenge other laws which discriminate against persons with mental illness. The Court also highlights the responsibilities of mental health professionals and counsellors while providing mental healthcare to LGBTIQ persons. Finally, the Court�s reading of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is also a recognition of its commitment as an anti-discrimination legislation which upholds constitutional values and protects the rights of persons with mental illness.
印度最高法院最近通过了一项具有里程碑意义的判决,宣布同性恋非罪化,该判决涉及纳夫泰杰·乔哈尔等人诉印度联邦案。在判决中,法院认为1860年《印度刑法典》第377条违宪,因为该条将两个成年人之间的自愿性行为定为犯罪。法院认为,第377条基于性取向对 LGBTQI 群体的人进行歧视,侵犯了他们受《印度宪法》保障的基本权利。法院在考虑了既定的宪法原则、外国先例和专家意见后得出了这一结论。然而,法院推理的一个关键部分是基于对2017年《精神卫生保健法》的仔细研读。法院依据2017年《精神卫生保健法》的反歧视条款指出,同性恋不是一种精神疾病或精神障碍,LGBTQI群体的人不能因其性取向而受到歧视。法院对2017年《精神卫生保健法》和第377条的解读意义重大,因为其理由可以进一步扩展,以挑战其他歧视精神疾病患者的法律。法院还强调了心理健康专业人员和咨询师在为LGBTQI群体提供精神卫生保健时的责任。最后,法院对2017年《精神卫生保健法》的解读也认可了其作为一项反歧视立法的承诺,该立法维护宪法价值并保护精神疾病患者的权利。