Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was a colonial-era law in India that criminalized certain sexual activities. It read as follows:

"Unnatural Offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 377 was often used to criminalize consensual homosexual activities, as it included the term "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." This law was widely criticized for being discriminatory and infringing on the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in September 2018, partially struck down Section 377. The court ruled that consensual adult homosexual activity could no longer be treated as a criminal offense. This decision was a significant step forward in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in India, as it decriminalized same-sex relationships between consenting adults.

4. Human rights Declaration

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a foundational document that outlines a set of fundamental rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The UDHR serves as a global standard for human rights and has been a cornerstone of international law and advocacy. Here are some key points from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1. Inherent Dignity: The UDHR recognizes the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family. It emphasizes that all individuals are entitled to these rights without discrimination.

2. Civil and Political Rights: The declaration includes a range of civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and security of person; the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; and the right to participate in government.

3. Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: It also includes economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to work, the right to education, and the right to an adequate standard of living.

4. Non-Discrimination: The UDHR strongly condemns discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.

5. Freedom and Equality: It underscores principles of freedom, equality, and non-arbitrary treatment under the law. It affirms that everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to equal protection of the law.

6. No Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment: The declaration explicitly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

7. Right to Asylum: It recognizes the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries.

8. Freedom of Expression and Information: The UDHR protects the right to freedom of thought, expression, and information.

9. Right to Education: It asserts the right to education, which should be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.

10. Right to Participate in Government: The declaration acknowledges the right to take part in the government of one's country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has served as the foundation for subsequent international human rights treaties and conventions. It continues to be a powerful tool for advocating for human rights and has influenced the development of laws, policies, and practices around the world.

UDHR and Supreme Court Judgement

• The Supreme Court has used the provisions of UDHR to elaborate rights under the Constitution.
• Thus, in the context of handcuffing and consequential torture contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution, in Prem Shankar Shukla, the Supreme Court referred to Article 5 of the UDHR stating that, “After all, even while discussing the relevant statutory and constitutional requirements court and counsel must never forget the core principle found in Article 5
  of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
• This was reiterated in Francis Coralie Mullin, which based on the concept of dignity stated,”It would thus be seen that there is implicit in Article 21 the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which is enunciated in Article 5 of the [UDHR]”.
• In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court relied on Article 10 of the UDHR to read in principles of natural justice into the administrative process to state, “Hark back to Article 10 of the [UDHR] to realise that human rights have but a verbal hollow if the protective armour of Audi altered parted is deleted”.

Thus, it was eminently reasonable to develop the concept of the right to marry into Articles 19 and 21, especially because the right to intimate relations is now recognised in Supriyo Chakraborty itself. Surprisingly, the Court says that we cannot use foreign jurisprudence in
the case of legal issues relatig to marriage, despite the fact that in Surpriyo Chakraborty, the Court has introduced the doctrine of intimate association borrowed from the jurisprudence developed in the United States.

5.Way forward

 Transgender persons, the Court holds that marriage between a trans-man and a cis-woman or
between a transwoman and a cisman is legal. That is correct. But there lies irony. It needs to be appreciated that according to the logic of the judgment, marriage is only legal between a man and woman, that is a biological man
and woman. The Court has rightly made the leap from biological sex to gender, which is self-identified in accordance with NALSA. If the leap was possible for biological sex to self-identified gender, it is difficult to understand why a leap could not be made from biological sex to sexual orientation. After all, not recognising marriage for same sex couples is not only discriminatory against them. The unintended consequence of the judgment in the larger society
is that the notion that same sex couples are “not fit for marriage” will be perpetuated. It now has the imprimatur of the highest court. It reduces them to second class citizens.