The age of consent is equal since decriminalization. In the Supreme Court case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitutional Bench overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation and decriminalized homosexuality by striking down the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that deemed sexual acts between consenting adults as criminal.

Sources: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 2018 INSC 790 (Supreme Court of India) [web.archive.org/web/2020070…//main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf]

In the Supreme Court case of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitutional Bench held that LGBTQ+ persons have the right to choose a partner, cohabit and enjoy physical & mental intimacy, free from physical threat and coercive action. The State is bound to protect the exercise of these rights.

Sources: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023) 2023 INSC 920 (Supreme Court of India) [web.archive.org/web/2023101…//main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/36593/36593_2022_1_1501_47792_Judgement_17-Oct-2023.pdf]

The Indian Penal Code was enacted by the Imperial Legislative Council, the legislature during British direct rule in India. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalized same-sex sexual acts and carried a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

Sources: Indian Penal Code, Act No 45 of 1860 [indiacode.nic.in/handle/123…

In the Supreme Court case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitutional Bench overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation and decriminalized homosexuality by striking down the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that deemed sexual acts between consenting adults as criminal.

Sources: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 2018 INSC 790 (Supreme Court of India) [web.archive.org/web/2020070…//main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf]

In the Delhi High Court case of Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, a two-judge Division Bench decriminalized homosexuality by striking down the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that deemed sexual acts between consenting adults as criminal.

Sources: Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) Writ Petition (Civil) No.7455 of 2001 (Delhi High Court) [web.archive.org/web/2009082…//lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgement/02-07-2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf]

In the Supreme Court case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitutional Bench overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation and decriminalized homosexuality by striking down the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that deemed sexual acts between consenting adults as criminal.

Sources: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 2018 INSC 790 (India) [web.archive.org/web/2020070…//main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf]

In the Supreme Court case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, a two-judge Division Bench overturned the Delhi High Court's decision in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, upholding the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized same-sex sexual intercourse and carried a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

Sources: Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) Civil Appeal No. 10972 of 2013 (Supreme Court of India) [web.archive.org/web/2020090…//main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/41070.pdf]

The Supreme Court of India, ruling in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, decriminalized homosexuality by striking down the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that deemed sexual acts between consenting adults as criminal, thereby overturning the precedent set by the Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) case.

Sources: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 2018 INSC 790 (India) [web.archive.org/web/2020070…//main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf]

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 allows for transgender individuals to change their gender marker to either "male" or "female" only after showing proof of their gender confirmation surgery issued by a medical officer to the District Magistrate. This provision contradicts the Supreme Court decision in 2014. This contradiction has been challenged as unconstitutional in the Indian Supreme Court. As of June 2020, a second petition alleging unconstitutionality has been entered, and will be heard along with the first. Overall, the petitions challenge Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Act, claiming that they also contradict the Constitution of India. This case is still pending a decision. Under section 6 of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, a trans person may apply to be issued a certificate of identity that certifies that they are transgender (denoted as "Transgender"). Upon receiving this certificate, the applicants have the right to be recorded as transgender in all official documents.

Sources: indiacode.nic.in/handle/123…