Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in India have expanded significantly in the 21st century, primarily driven by judicial interventions rather than legislative action. While there are no legal restrictions on consensual same-sex sexual activity, LGBTQ people in India continue to face legal and social challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. India does not officially recognise same-sex marriage or civil unions at the national level, though various courts have granted legal protections for unregistered cohabitation.
Transgender citizens in India hold a constitutional right to register themselves under a third gender, following the landmark 2014 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA) ruling. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its subsequent amendments regulate the right to self-perceived gender identity and the issuance of identification documents. Furthermore, several states provide targeted welfare programmes, housing, and healthcare benefits for hijras and the broader transgender population.
Despite systemic legal progress, the lived realities of LGBTQ individuals are often dictated by implementational hurdles and societal stigma. Activists highlight ongoing "corrigible inequities," and demographic studies indicate a high prevalence of verbal abuse and physical violence directed at sexual minorities.
History
Historically, there were no widespread legal restrictions on homosexuality or transsexuality for the general population in the Indian subcontinent prior to the medieval and colonial periods. While certain moral codes forbade sexual misconduct (both heterosexual and homosexual) among priests and monks, non-procreative sex was generally viewed as a minor societal issue rather than a criminal offense.
Ancient Indian texts, including the Sushruta Samhita and the Kama Sutra, explicitly mention homosexuality, transgender individuals (referred to as tritiya-prakriti), and intersex people. Hindu mythology prominently features deities and heroes experiencing gender fluidity and same-sex unions, such as Shikhandi in the Mahabharata and Ardhanarishvara. The Hindu Khajuraho temples also feature erotic sculptures depicting homosexual activity. While Buddhist doctrines generally regulated the sexual behavior of monks and nuns, marriage and sexuality were traditionally viewed as secular social contracts rather than strict religious mandates.
The criminalisation of homosexuality in the region intensified during the Mughal Empire, which consolidated anti-homosexual laws under the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri. This legal code mandated severe punishments for homosexual acts, including flogging and death by stoning. The persecution was later codified nationally by the British Raj through the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The British introduced Section 377, imposing Victorian morality on the colonial subjects and criminalising all "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." Additionally, in 1871, British authorities labelled the traditional hijra population as a "criminal tribe."
Decriminalisation of Section 377 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
The legal battle to overturn Section 377 spanned two decades. In 2009, the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi struck down the law as unconstitutional, establishing early precedents for LGBTQ equality. However, the Supreme Court of India controversially overturned this decision in December 2013, effectively recriminalising homosexuality and leaving the matter to the Parliament of India. Legislative attempts to repeal the law, including private member bills introduced by MP Shashi Tharoor, were subsequently defeated in the Lok Sabha.
The turning point occurred in August 2017, when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the right to individual privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, explicitly stating that sexual orientation is protected under privacy. Relying on this precedent, a five-judge constitutional bench heard petitions challenging Section 377 in mid-2018.
On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court issued its landmark unanimous verdict in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, formally striking down the portions of Section 377 that criminalised consensual homosexual sex. The bench ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of the Constitution and stated that history owed an apology to the LGBTQ community for the systemic marginalisation they had faced. However, the ruling preserved Section 377 to prosecute non-consensual acts and bestiality.
In July 2024, the Indian Penal Code was officially replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which omitted Section 377 entirely. While this finalised the erasure of the colonial criminalisation of consensual queer sex, legal scholars and rights advocates noted it created a legal vacuum; because the new code's rape provisions remain strictly gendered toward female victims, adult male and transgender victims of sexual assault were left with limited legal recourse under the new statutes.
Recognition of relationships and families
India does not possess a national framework for legalising same-sex marriages or civil unions. However, the judiciary has progressively recognised the rights of same-sex couples to cohabit securely. Multiple state high courts, including those in Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Kerala, have ordered police protection for same-sex couples facing family backlash, thereby affirming their right to live-in relationships. In August 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in a maternity leave case that the legal definition of a "family unit" can include unmarried and queer relationships, entitling them to social welfare benefits.
The movement for marriage equality culminated in 2023 with the Supreme Court hearing a batch of petitions in Supriyo v. Union of India. The proceedings faced opposition from the Union Government, which argued that marriage laws should be determined by Parliament, and from various religious organisations across Hindu, Islamic, and Christian denominations. Several state governments also submitted affidavits opposing legalisation. On 17 October 2023, a five-judge bench unanimously rejected the legalization of same-sex marriage, ruling that the power to amend the Special Marriage Act rested strictly with the legislature. However, the court strongly reiterated the constitutional rights of LGBTQ citizens to form intimate relationships and directed the federal government to establish a committee to address the practical, legal, and financial difficulties faced by same-sex couples.
Following the verdict, the federal government established a Cabinet Secretary-led commission in April 2024 to evaluate the welfare needs of the LGBTQ community. Subsequently, in August 2024, the Ministry of Finance issued an advisory clarifying that LGBTQ persons face no restrictions in opening joint bank accounts or nominating their partners as beneficiaries.
Transgender rights
India has a long-standing cultural recognition of a third gender, historically represented by communities such as hijras, aravanis, and kinnars. The modern legal framework for transgender rights was established by the Supreme Court's 2014 NALSA judgment, which declared transgender people a socially and economically suppressed class entitled to constitutional rights, self-identification, and anti-discrimination protections.
This ruling was codified by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which banned discrimination in education, employment, healthcare, and housing. It established the right to self-identify as male, female, or transgender. However, the initial act drew heavy criticism from activists for requiring transgender individuals to seek certification from a district magistrate and providing lighter criminal penalties for sexual assault against transgender people compared to cisgender women.
In March 2026, the Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The amendment faced significant opposition and parliamentary walkouts from minority parties for replacing the right to self-identification with a mandatory medical board examination to legally determine one's gender. The amendment also explicitly required surgical intervention as a prerequisite for updating official documents to male or female, while extending protections to individuals coerced into assuming a transgender identity.
At the state level, numerous governments—including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Odisha—have established transgender welfare boards. These boards coordinate policy, offer housing subsidies, provide free sex reassignment surgeries in public hospitals, and manage pension schemes for the community. In April 2024, the federal government expanded the Ayushman Bharat scheme to cover transition-related healthcare for all members of the transgender community.
Intersex rights
Intersex issues in India have historically been conflated with third-gender or transgender issues. While the hijra community is the most visible gender minority, indigenous terminology has long differentiated intersex individuals. For example, Sangam literature uses the word pedi to refer to people born intersex, and other indigenous minority groups use the term mabedi usili to denote a distinct intersex identity.
Bodily autonomy and medical interventions Intersex individuals in India face severe challenges regarding physical integrity and bodily autonomy. Medical reports and rights advocates note a historical prevalence of infanticide involving infants with obvious intersex conditions, as well as a strong societal preference for parents to assign intersex infants as male through coercive, non-consensual surgical interventions.
In a landmark legal victory for the community, the Madras High Court issued a directive in April 2019 ordering the state of Tamil Nadu to ban sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants. Relying on the advocacy of intersex activist Gopi Shankar Madurai, the court condemned the rampant practice of compulsory medical interventions on children, marking the first major legal protection for intersex bodily autonomy in the country. For adults, Indian passports do offer an "O" (for "Other") sex descriptor alongside male and female.
Protection from discrimination Intersex adults, particularly in the realm of competitive sports, have faced systemic discrimination, public humiliation, and loss of livelihood due to mandatory sex verification testing.
Middle-distance runner Santhi Soundarajan was stripped of her silver medal from the 2006 Asian Games after failing a gender test, an event that led to severe psychological distress. Similarly, track athlete Pinki Pramanik faced intense public scrutiny and forced gender testing following legal accusations in 2012. The sporting landscape shifted globally in 2015 when Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully challenged the IAAF's hyperandrogenism regulations at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Chand's victory suspended policies that disqualified female athletes with naturally high testosterone levels, setting a major precedent for athletes with variations in sex characteristics.
Political representation Visibility for the intersex community in Indian politics has grown in recent years. In the 2016 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, Gopi Shankar Madurai became one of the youngest—and the first openly intersex and genderqueer—candidates to contest a major political seat, bringing mainstream attention to intersex rights in regional politics.
Anti-discrimination and conversion therapy