Good news for India! Oral arguments in Johar v. India will begin starting January 17 (the fourth case in the list): http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/notice12...

Arguments will be heard in the Chief Justice's Court, and the Constitutional Bench will comprise the following judges: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A. K. Sikri, Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Ashok Bhushan:
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/cl/wk/201...

Justice Sikri was part of the 2-judge bench that, in 2014, in a landmark case NALSA v. India, recognized the right of transgender individuals to be treated as "third gender" for the purpose of safeguarding their constitutional rights.

In late August 2017, Justice Chandrachud also delivered a plurality opinion (writing for 4 out of 9 judges) in a landmark case Puttaswamy v. India, in which the Court unanimously held that held that the right to privacy is fundamental and protected by the Constitution. Chandrachud's opinion condemned the Court's 2013 decision in Koushal as "unsustainable" because one's sexual orientation is integral to the individual's privacy and dignity (one other Justice, in a concurring opinion, agreed with this observation), but stopped short of explicitly overruling it (due to lack of jurisdiction and respect for due process). Most importantly, the judgment in Puttaswamy (decided by a 9-judge bench) binds the 5-judge bench that will now take up Johar.

It is all but certain, therefore, that this bench will end up doing what the Puttaswamy bench could not explicitly do, and overrule Koushal. This would let the Court completely avoid dealing with the separate batch of curative petitions seeking review of Koushal (pending since 2014), and dispose them as moot.

If Koushal is akin to Bowers v. Hardwick (US Supreme Court), then I hope that Johar will be India's Lawrence v. Texas.

It looks as though India's Supreme Court has finally, decisively, agreed to review its 2013 judgment that re-criminalized so-called "unnatural" sexual acts between consenting adults. It is worth noting that today's order stems from the proceedings of a separate case, Johar v. India, where petitioners are directly affected by the law, whereas the 2013 judgment was in a different case, Koushal v. Naz Foundation, where the petitioner in the court below (Delhi High Court) was a nonprofit organization. However, the selection of judges for formation of the larger (at least 5 judges, and up to 11) constitutional bench is completely at the discretion of the Chief Justice (who was part of the three-judge panel that issued today's order), who is likely to consolidate these cases before a single bench. The current Chief Justice will retire on October 2, 2018, so, I hope that he will act before then!

An in-depth article: http://www.livelaw.in/challenge-s-377-ipc-hearing...

Today's order: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/20...

The punchline: "Taking all the aspects in a cumulative manner, we are of the view, the decision in Koushal (supra) requires reconsideration. As the question relates to constitutional issues, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative side, for consideration of the appropriate larger bench."

European Court of Justice just heard a case involving the recognition of a Romanian's marriage. It's ruling could impact the recognition of marriage across the EU: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/world/europe/r...

I miss you all too! I've been in India for the past three years, in a crazy-busy job. I do keep an eye on this form and check back for updates on what's happening every now and then! This coming year is going to be big for us again!

What's more, the judgment cites a plethora of US Supreme Court decisions concerning privacy from Griswold, Roe, Casey to Bowers, Lawrence, Obergefell (quoting Justice Kennedy, of course). See Pages 141-165.

Landmark judgment today by a unanimous 9-judge constitutional bench of India's Supreme Court, recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and specifically calling out sexual orientation as an essential attribute of privacy and deserving of Constitutional protection.

Today's judgment expressly overruled several previous judgments that held that the right to privacy does not enjoy Constitutional protection. While the Court explicitly called out its fateful December 2013 ruling in Koushal that upheld the constitutionality of Section 377 (criminalizing consensual homosexual activity) as bad law, devoting 5 pages to explain why (pages 121-125), it stopped short of expressly overruling Koushal only because a curative petition on the matter is still pending before a different bench of the Court.

This is great progress, and I'm looking forward to the pending curative petition being quickly acted upon now, in light of today's judgment.

I recommend reading pages 121-125 of the judgment as it relates to the criticism of Koushal:

Full judgment: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/20...

A review petition asking our Supreme Court to review its December 2013 decision recriminalizing homosexuality was denied in early 2014 and a "curative petition" (final appeal for reconsideration) was filed soon after. Two years later, in early 2016, our Supreme Court agreed to set up a constitutional bench to decide whether to allow the curative petition to proceed. This has still not happened. If allowed, the earlier decision will be wiped out and briefing and hearings start all over again. As you can gather, the speed at which this is proceeding is snail-paced (typical for our courts), and curative petitions are very rarely allowed to proceed, historically speaking.

Yes, but even then, LGB people shouldn't have to identify/falsify themselves as belonging to the third gender (used for transgender individuals) in order to get married.

Homosexual intercourse is still illegal in India. I don't see that changing for the next several years at least, let alone marriage equality!

Politico predicts that the Obama administration will countersue:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/north-carol...