The case was bought by the Naz Foundation, an NGO working with people living with HIV/AIDS. The Naz Foundation argued that section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which had effectively been interpreted as criminalising consensual sexual acts between persons of the same sex, was unconstitutional. They argued that the section violated fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, privacy, life and liberty and health. The High Court of Delhi concluded that section 377 was indeed unconstitutional, and the judgment emphasises the importance of the right to equality.
The Supreme Court of Nepal issued a writ of mandamus stating that non-discrimination provisions on the grounds of sexual orientation must be introduced into the constitution of Nepal. The Court stated that all LGBT persons are ‘natural persons’ and that their sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression are all part of natural growing processes. Equal rights, identity and expression must therefore be ensured.
The respondents engaged in homosexual intercourse in a private car parked beside a public road. They were charged with having committed buggery with each other otherwise than in private, contrary to the Crimes Ordinance. The respondents challenged the constitutionality of this), arguing that the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights guaranteed them a right to equality. The Court found in their favour and the respondents’ convictions were quashed.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that the banning of an LGBT pride parade in Warsaw was a violation of Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court specifically acknowledged that the protection of minorities includes people with a minority sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal held that disparate age-of-consent laws between same-sex and opposite-sex intercourse violated Hong Kong’s Basic Law and Bill of Rights. The Court set a new precedent by recognising sexual orientation as a proscribed ground of discrimination, giving sexual orientation equal footing with other proscribed grounds of discrimination, such as sex and race.
Nadan and McCosker had engaged in private, consensual, homosexual intercourse and had been charged pursuant to ss 175 and 177 of the Fijian Penal Code which criminalises carnal acts ‘against the order of nature’ and acts of ‘gross indecency’. They argued in the High Court that these provisions of the Penal Code were constitutionally invalid on the basis that they infringed provisions concerning privacy, equality, and freedom from degrading treatment. The court found for the appellants, quashing their convictions, as well as reading down the offending sections to that they would continue to operate only in relation to non-consensual sexual acts.