India is a democratic country, and its citizens have certain rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Equal rights, non-discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth, freedom of speech and expression, and protection of life and individual freedom are guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution .Nonetheless, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of India decriminalised the behaviour in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 criminalises consensus homosexuality. Unlike normal procreative intercourse, the word "heterosexuality" was used to describe sexual pathologies between men and women, such as oral and analytic. In late-nineteenth-century Europe, homosexuality was used to describe unhealthy sexual emotions between people of the same sex. Colonial laws deemed it unnatural. Imperial power was used to enact laws that outlawed unnatural intercourse all throughout the world. This work is the subject of Section 377 analysis. It investigates how Section 377 was interpreted and discussed. The study begins with a brief overview of Section 377, including what it says, who it affects, who it is, and what it implies. The study investigates the history of the judicial system's rise to jurisdiction in Section 377. The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether or not the Supreme Court's decision to decriminalise homosexuality was fair. In the context of the dispute over Section 377 and related challenges, the paper raises an important cultural issue. The current paper investigates the finer points of homosexuality and morality from a modern human standpoint.
Key words: Decriminalize, homosexuality.