The Supreme Court has partially struck down Section 377 of the IPC, in so far as it punishes sex between consenting adults in same sex relations. The apex court has overruled the Suresh Kaushik verdict of 2016, which had reversed the Delhi High Court ruling decriminalising sex in such relations.

CJI Dipak Misra says: "Only Constitutional morality and not social morality can be allowed to permeate rule of law... Sexual orientation is one of the many natural phenomenon. Any discrimination on basis of sexual orientation amounts to violation of fundamental rights. After judgement in Puttuswamy case, privacy has been raised to fundamental right."

Four opinions will be read out by the judges. CJI Dipak Misra says there is a consensus among the judgments, which means all the judges are in agreement.

The bench, led by CJI Misra has assembled. The judgment is expected to be read now.

CJI Dipak Misra is set to retire on October 2. The bench he heads is expected to rule on several important cases in the next month, including today's verdict on Section 377. The cases include the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, Adultery, criminalisation of politics etc. Read the complete list here.

The verdict is expected after 11.30, which is when the court will re-assembly. The five-judge bench, led by CJI Dipak Misra and comprising Justices Fali Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, is expected to deliver four separate judgments.

The verdict on Section 377 comes on five petitions moved by dancer Navtej Jauhar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath and Keshav Suri and business executive Ayesha Kapur. Here is a short profile on each of them.

In July, when the SC had reserved its verdict in the case, CJI Misra had observed that the court is only concerned with consensual acts. "We are only on consensual acts... Consent is the fulcrum... Your enjoyment cannot offend the dignity of others." This may mean that today's verdict will concern sex between consenting adults. Nonetheless, it will raise larger questions on marriage, adoption and inheritance etc. of sexual minorities.

The petitions are listed for judgment at 10.30 am this morning. However, it is likely to be delayed as a full court reference in the memory of senior advocates Dr G C Bharuka and V A Mohta. Meanwhile, as we wait, here are some pictures from outside the court, taken by our photojournalist Abhinav Saha.

Journalists outside the Supreme Court on Thursday; petitioner Keshav Suri talks to the media (Express Photo/Abhinav Saha)

In July, when the SC reserved its verdict in the case, the bench had observed that it does not wait for “majoritarian governments” to act if it finds that a law violates fundamental rights. Justice Nariman had said, "The moment we are convinced that there is a violation of fundamental rights, we cannot leave anything to the legislature... The whole object of the fundamental rights chapter is to strike down laws that violate fundamental rights which majoritarian governments may find difficult to do because of vote bank concerns etc."

Read more here

Shalini Nair writes in The Indian Express today: It was in 1994 that journalist Sunil Mehra met Bharatnatyam dancer Navtej Johar for a profile he was working on. Coming back to the newsroom, Sunil declared that he could not write the story with the journalistic objectivity required of him. That story remained untold but the two moved in together within six months.

We are products of psychological and emotional dysfunction, says Johar; today's verdict could start changing that.

Read the entire article here

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to end the matter conclusively, and to right a dreadful historical wrong, in whose persistence the court has been instrumental. Historically, governments have been reluctant to withdraw Section 377. But now, in an admirable change of stance, it has lobbed the ball back to the court, where it belongs. The Supreme Court is the proper guardian of the rights of minorities like the LGBT community — in Parliament, majoritarian opinion may prevail. Besides, the validity of Section 377 is a question of right and wrong, which is best addressed legally.

Read the editorial, 'Unnatural section' here

In July 2009, the Delhi HC had decriminalised homosexuality among consenting adults after finding that it violated Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. At the time, the HC was hearing a petition filed by NGO Naz Foundation. The government had argued that homosexuality comprises only 0.3 per cent of the population, and therefore the rights of over 99 per cent cannot be compromised.

The verdict, however, was struck down by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in December 2013. The top court, finding that the HC's judgment was "legally unsustainable", recriminalised gay sex. The SC also left it to Parliament to consider deleting the provision from the IPC.

A review petition filed by Naz was quashed.

In January this year, riding on the back of the SC's verdict on the right to privacy being a fundamental right, a petition challenging Section 377 was assigned to a five-judge Constitution bench.

Dating back to 1861, Section 377 of the IPC states: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal inter­course against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with impris­onment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” What is Section 377 of IPC?

A five-judge bench will deliver a verdict on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the criminalisation of homosexuality, on Thursday morning. The highly-anticipated judgment comes at a time when the LGBTQ movement, demanding the right to free choice, and to live happy, equal lives without discrimination or hate, is picking up pace not just across India, but across the world.  The verdict is likely to be delivered after 10.30 this morning. Follow our LIVE blog for the latest news and information.