Democracy allows every citizen with certain basic rights and protection irrespective of whether one belongs to the minority or the majority class. Of late, in India a number of cases have come to the fore which throws light upon various instances where an individual’s private choices have been hampered. Our constitution provides for both protection and punishment against any section, law or article. However the constitutional validity of any section in the Constitution should not be determined on the grounds of religious doctrines. The 2013 stance on section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes gay sex, was brought to light yet again this year to determine whether it stands justified to punish someone who has different sexual affliction. A British era draconian law, which penalises adults for having consensual sex of his same gender, is done away by many countries. However, our country imbibes in a number of moral codes which has generated this ruckus raging throughout the country. The LGBTQ community saw a ray of hope when a three judge bench decided to vindicate whether ‘gay sex’ is a criminal offense or not’ a few weeks back. Section 377 of the Indian constitution states that it is a criminal offense to have sex “against the order of nature”, including homosexual sexual activities. Of the petition filed by the Naz foundation revealed the dual mind-set of the people which had been fighting for the rights of the third gender since 2009. The Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation case of 2013 witnessed what we can call a sheer lack of knowledge and poor psychology. The verdict clearly stated that the LGBTQ community comprises of a very minute number so the constitution cannot protect their rightsIn an period where the apex court has taken historic stance on the Right to Privacy and Triple Talaq bill, declaring section 377 as unconstitutional would restore a kind of balance. As an adult, it should be left at the individual’s discretion to determine his sexual choices. Gone are the days when our society had to uphold the cultural stigma. Homosexual affliction are not self-made but comes with the child with his birth. Persecuting someone on the basis of his sexual preferences is too harsh to accept.