India’s Supreme Court is expected to issue a closely watched constitutional ruling that could shape the future of LGBTQ rights litigation. 

The decision will determine whether courts can continue to rely on the doctrine of constitutional morality, a principle that has underpinned several landmark rights decisions. During hearings in April, the Indian government urged the Supreme Court to reject the doctrine, arguing that it has no basis in the Constitution and should not guide judicial decision-making.

For years, the Supreme Court has relied on the constitutional morality doctrine to treat the Constitution as a living document: one whose enduring promises of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity must be applied to the realities of a changing society rather than remain frozen in the era in which it was written.

The Indian government in April asked the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutional reasoning behind two landmark judgments: one that struck down the country’s adultery law and another that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, arguing that both relied on a subjective invocation of constitutional morality and should no longer be treated as good law.

Arguing before a 9-judge bench considering constitutional questions referred from the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala temple case, which allowed women of menstruating age to enter one of Hinduism’s holiest shrines after a centuries-old ban, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, India’s second-highest law officer, argued that “constitutional morality” has no textual basis in the Constitution and is instead a judicially evolved concept that is vague and indeterminate.

Mehta said the government did not oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 497 of the Indian penal code, which criminalized adultery, if it was based on Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Instead, he argued that the court should not have relied on what he described as the “vague and subjective” doctrine of constitutional morality to reach its conclusion.

Mehta told the Supreme Court that its 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations wrongly equated “morality” with majoritarian or mob morality while relying on constitutional morality as the basis for its reasoning.

To support his argument against relying on constitutional morality, Mehta quoted extensively from then-Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. 

Scalia argued that courts should not import foreign legal trends or allow evolving social values to drive constitutional interpretation, contending that judges must remain neutral arbiters rather than participants in broader cultural debates.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine, Mehta questioned whether the judgments reflected the constitutional vision of India’s founding generation. 

“If these judgments, Navtej Johar, Joseph Shine, etc., were to be read by Dr. Ambedkar or Kanhaiyalal Munshi or Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, I do not know whether they would be surprised, shocked or they would say that this is what we wanted. I believe, they did not want this to happen,” he told the bench.

“A new trend starts, which is Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi,” Mehta said. “This is the judgment of Delhi High Court which was ultimately affirmed in Navtej Johar, sodomy … ‘In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view.’ In case of a country governed by democratic principles, the view which is always majoritarian will prevail. When it is question of testing a law, it is always the majority which passes the law. How can you define morality based on this?”

The Naz Foundation case marked the beginning of a landmark constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the Indian penal code, a colonial-era provision that criminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults as “against the order of nature.” The public interest litigation, filed in 2001 by the Naz Foundation, an NGO working on HIV/AIDS and sexual health, argued that the law violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 

In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled in the organization’s favor, holding that Section 377 violated the rights to equality under Article 14, protection against discrimination under Article 15, and life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling was short-lived. 

In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation overturned the decision, recriminalizing homosexuality under Section 377. 

The court held that the law affected only a “minuscule fraction” of the population and said it was for Parliament — not the judiciary — to decide whether the provision should remain on the statute books. Five years later, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench in Navtej Singh Johar, unanimously overruled its 2013 judgment, holding that Section 377 was unconstitutional. The decision marked the culmination of the Naz Foundation’s long legal challenge to the colonial-era provision.

Anish Gawande, the first openly gay person to serve as a national spokesperson for a major political party in India, the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), told the Washington Blade that the doctrine of constitutional morality, which he said underpinned not only Navtej Singh Johar but also forms one of the foundational principles of India’s constitutional jurisprudence, is “an incredibly important concept.”

“It provides a moral backbone to the document in a way that prevents any amendments to the Constitution from being out into place that would violate the very ethos upon which the Constitution was framed,” Gawande said. “Constitutional morality is an incredibly important antidote to societal morality. It’s been what has allowed us to clamp down on things like dowry. It’s been something that has allowed us to bar even regressive religious practices that might go against human dignity. It’s also been an incredibly important framework that has allowed for the advancement of LGBTQ rights in opposition to arguments made by practitioners and leaders of various religious denominations about the societal immorality of queerness.” 

“The most critical part of constitutional morality, which is a doctrine that has been put in place by the courts, is that it is a very effective bulwark against majoritarianism and the unilateral diktat of the executive over the judiciary and, in some ways, also the legislature,” he added.

Gawande said those factors make constitutional morality “an incredibly important concept” in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. 

If the Supreme Court were ultimately to narrow or reject the doctrine, he said, judgments that have relied on constitutional morality, including the landmark Navtej Singh Johar ruling could come under renewed scrutiny. He added, however, that he did not believe the Supreme Court would take that step because it would run contrary to its own institutional interests.

Gawande said the government has advanced several reasons for challenging the doctrine of constitutional morality. One of them, he said, is that the solicitor general has opposed the doctrine in cases involving religious issues, arguing that courts should not rely on it in constitutional adjudication. 

“The downward repercussions of this, however, could extend to LGBTQ rights and to the rights of all sorts of persecuted minorities in the future,” he said.

“The second thing is that, in principle, the section 377 judgment, of course, rests upon constitutional morality, but it is also resting upon so many other fundamental rights, including the right to privacy that Puttuswamy upheld before the Navtej Singh Johar verdict,” Gawande added. “In Navtej, the right to privacy was also cited as an incredibly important condition upon which the decriminalization of ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ could be permitted. In many ways, the fact that Section 377 does not exist on the statute books at all in the present updated penal codes, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, provides some respite. The entry of Section 377, at least immediately after a reading down of constitutional morality, is not imminent yet. However, it opens the door for a new Section 377 to be introduced and the judicial mechanism available to counter that new section 377, if it were to be introduced, to be reduced significantly.”

Ankit Bhupatani, an LGBTQ activist, said he does not believe the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of constitutional morality would lead to the recriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations. 

He argued the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar decision rests on multiple constitutional principles beyond constitutional morality, but warned that weakening the doctrine could make it more difficult to secure future LGBTQ rights through the courts.

“If we have to take an informed guess on why the government does not like the concept of constitutional morality, it is because it wants a narrower field of judicial review and an elected legislature restored as the primary author of social policy,” Bhupatani said. “But we have already seen parliament’s ability to make laws related to LGBT rights, and it does not give optimism.” 

“The only practical way forward for LGBT rights in India is the judiciary,” he added. “But if the government’s argument is accepted by the Supreme Court, it means the next gay Indian who walks into a court for marriage, for adoption, for inheritance, or for a job they were fired from, finds it more difficult to secure these rights from the only institution from which we could hope for a positive outcome.”

Bhupatani said the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations would probably survive because the Navtej Singh Johar judgment also rests on the constitutional principles of privacy and equality. However, he warned that weakening the doctrine of constitutional morality could stall broader progress for LGBTQ rights. 

“The community keeps the floor and loses the staircase,” he said. “Nobody is criminalized, but nobody moves up.”

“The clever thing about this is that it lets the government have it both ways. To its so-called base, who think that making the law, especially on social issues, is the work of elected parliamentarians and not judges,” said Bhupatani. “It signals that the 2018 verdict was a judicial overreach that ought never to have happened. To everyone else, truthfully, that it never asked to recriminalize anyone. Both messages, one filing.”

Bhupatani said the implications of the government’s position extend beyond LGBTQ rights, arguing that asking the Supreme Court to treat the reasoning in Navtej Singh Johar as “not good law” raises broader questions about India’s commitment to constitutional rights. He said such a move could also affect how India’s constitutional democracy is perceived internationally.

Advocacy groups have joined the relief efforts in Venezuela after two back-to-back earthquakes devastated large swaths of the country on June 24.

The magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 earthquakes caused widespread damage in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, and elsewhere in the country.

Officials in the South American country say the earthquakes killed more than 4,500 people and left more than 16,000 others injured. La Guaira state on Venezuela’s Caribbean coast in which the country’s main international airport is located is one of the hardest hit areas.

Yonatan Matheus, a Venezuelan LGBTQ rights activist who currently lives in the U.S., was born and raised in La Guaira.

He wrote on his website that relatives and close friends who still live in the state have lost their homes. Matheus in his post that the Washington Blade published on Monday also said the earthquakes killed two gay men he knew.

“Their names reminded me that behind every statistic lie stories, personal bonds, and life plans,” he wrote. “They also made me think of all those people whose lives and deaths are unlikely to make headlines — especially those who lived on the margins for years, with little visibility and without full recognition of their dignity.”

“They reminded me that emergencies never affect everyone equally,” added Matheus. “Those already facing greater vulnerability often bear an even heavier burden during the recovery process.”

The earthquakes struck less than six months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas during an overnight operation.

Maduro and Flores on Jan. 5 pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges in New York. The Venezuelan National Assembly the day before swore in Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, as the country’s acting president.

Hugo Chávez died in 2013, and Maduro succeeded him as Venezuela’s president. Subsequent economic and political crises prompted millions of Venezuelans to leave the country.

Rodríguez has faced criticism over the Venezuelan government’s response to the earthquakes.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation Latin America Bureau Chief Patricia Campos in a message she sent to Michael Weinstein, the group’s president, on June 29 described the government’s response as “uncoordinated, poor, and delayed, influenced by political interests.”

“The number of fatalities continues to rise, and many shelters have been set up in public spaces to help those in need,” said Campos. “Hospitals and morgues are working tirelessly beyond their capacity, demonstrating the community’s resilience. Fortunately, international rescue teams have arrived, offering much-needed assistance to recover those still trapped in the debris.”

AHF has clinics in Cúcuta, a Colombian city that is a few miles from the country’s border with Venezuela, and elsewhere in Colombia.

Campos told Weinstein that AHF Colombia “has been communicating with” more than half of the 1,080 “of our patients in care who live in Venezuela.” Campos also noted AHF relief supplies arrived in Venezuela with the 11/13 Foundation, another NGO, and they had been distributed.

New York-based AID FOR AIDS International, an HIV/AIDS service organization that works in Venezuela, has launched an earthquake relief fund.

The Venezuela Earthquake Emergency Relief Fund has thus far raised $55,893.39. It hopes to raise $250,000.

“All donations will go directly to our network of local partners on the ground in Venezuela, who are working to assess the most urgent needs and provide emergency support to affected communities — including but not limited to medicines, food, water, and shelter,” says AID FOR AIDS International.

The group adds “the scale of destruction is the greatest challenge.”

“La Guaira has been catastrophically damaged, and Caracas continues to deteriorate — with looting, businesses closing due to insecurity, widespread power outages, and hospitals overwhelmed with injured patients but critically lacking supplies,” it says. “Reaching affected communities quickly and safely is not easy under these conditions.”

“Our challenge is immediacy,” added AID FOR AIDS International, which is working with its colleagues in Venezuela and students at the country’s Universidad Central de Venezuela who are part of the relief efforts. “Through the strategic partnerships we have already established with trusted organizations on the ground in Venezuela, we are positioned to mobilize resources directly and efficiently, ensuring that every dollar reaches the families in the affected areas.”

Other groups, such as Venezolanos en Barranquilla, which is based in the Colombian city of Barranquilla, have also joined the relief effort.

Barranquilla Vice President Juan Carlos Viloria in an interview with the Washington Post accused the Venezuelan government of “systematic negligence” by restricting “access to the most affected zones.” Venezolanos en Barranquilla nevertheless continues to work with the Catholic Church and other NGOs to mobilize rescue workers and to facilitate the distribution of food, water, generators, and other items in La Guaira and Caracas.

“Despite this situation, we are continuing to do everything for our people,” Viloria told the Blade last week.

Mexico’s first openly gay mayor was killed last week.

Media reports indicate former Fresnillo Mayor Benjamín Medrano was shot to death on July 7 inside an ice cream store in Guadalajara, the country’s second-largest city that is located in Jalisco state.

Fresnillo is a city in Zacatecas state.

Medrano, 59, in 2013 became Mexico’s first openly gay mayor. He represented Zacatecas’s First Federal Electoral District in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the Mexican Congress, from 2015-2018.

Medrano in 2017 was among the elected officials from across Latin America and the Caribbean who attended a conference in the Dominican Republic that focused on bolstering LGBTQ and intersex political engagement in the region. The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute is among the groups that organized the gathering.

Medrano after he left office faced accusations that he embezzled more than 60 million pesos ($3,443,101.20) in public funds when he was president of the Zacatecas National Fair’s Board of Trustees.

La Voz de Fresnillo, a Fresnillo newspaper, reported Medrano did not have any identification with him when he was shot. A relative identified him two days later.

State and federal authorities have not announced a potential motive. They have also not made any arrests in connection with Medrano’s murder.

Anti-LGBTQ violence and kidnappings are commonplace in Mexico.

A gay couple from the U.S. were among four people found dead in a mass grave outside Mexico City last month.

Members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in February set fire to cars and buses in Puerto Vallarta, a resort city in Jalisco state that is a popular destination for LGBTQ tourists from the U.S., after Mexican forces killed its powerful leader.

Puerto Vallarta is roughly 180 miles west of Guadalajara.