The reason partly was that the British administrators were uncomfortable using specific terms for homosexual sex and so they left the law vague.The Supreme Court’s judgment was challenged in a review petition, which was dismissed. In effect, this led to the decriminalisation of LGBT persons, since it meant that they were free to have sex with a person of their choice, irrespective of that person’s gender or sexual orientation.The case in court, however, does not deal with any of these categories of offences.The Delhi high court’s decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by an assorted group of religious and conservative groups and individuals.
They claimed that the high court judgment would lead to a breakdown of the moral fabric of the Indian society. Section 377 China jacquard fabric Factory of the IPC is a potent device and symbol of institutionalised homophobia and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons in India.The Delhi high court in its memorable judgment held that Section 377 was violative of the right to life and dignity, and the right to equality of LGBT persons. It challenges the use of Section 377 to arrest adults for consensual sex. Section 377 was also used in cases of child sexual abuse since there was no specific law to deal with sexual violence against children until the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted in 2012. In words that reverberate loudly even today, the court held that it would uphold constitutional morality rather than popular morality, thus asking the government to abide the secular values of the Constitution rather than the moral codes of any religion.  
The court has the option of admitting and hearing the matter, referring the matter to a Constitution Bench of five or more judges or dismissing the case.| SIDDHARTH NARRAIN   Published:  Feb 2, 2016, 5:42 am IST Updated:  Feb 2, 2016, 5:42 am IST Two years after the Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed in Suresh Koushal vs Naz Foundation, in which the court had held Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be constitutional, the caseTwo years after the Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed in Suresh Koushal vs Naz Foundation, in which the court had held Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be constitutional, the case has been listed for Tuesday in a curative petition challenging this decision. The court interpreted “sex” to mean “sexual orientation” in Article 15(2), the non-discrimination clause in the Constitution. The Delhi high court’s decision came after an eight-year-long legal battle that began to attract massive public attention by the time it reached its climax.  
In a peculiar way, the high court judgment seemed to galvanise these conservative groups from across the political spectrum. They also argued that it was not for the courts to decriminalise homosexuality and that it was the Parliament that was the appropriate forum for this. Having come this far, it is understandable that there is much nervous anticipation for Tuesday’s court hearing. Section 377 has been used in cases of bestiality, which is not covered by other provisions of the IPC.The 377 litigation has become the defining legal battle of our generation, gathering the support of leading senior lawyers, many of whom will be in court on Tuesday.