Journal of African Development

The history of the constitutional march of India has been characterized with an incredible advancement in the interpretation of the fundamental rights where the federal courts make remarkable decisions. The 2017 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India declared privacy as a fundamental right that is present in the human dignity in the article 21 of the Constitution. This was later reversed by a 2018 decision of NavtejSinghJohar to decriminalize same-sex consensual sex by distinguishing constitutional morality, and the majoritarian social tastes/preferences by stating that dignity and equality were applicable to minorities in sexual and gender terms. These court gains also show significant constitutional progress. This pledge, however, remains a viable fantasy due to fragmented, pro-surveillance cyber legislations and digital regulations frameworks that present acute vulnerability to the LGBTs and the rest of the marginalised groups.

With the rapid formation of digital identity regimes (Aadhaar biometric, in particular) and the extensive governmental exceptions established by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, state surveillance can take place in ways it has never been able to perform without adequate restrictions. Within the framework of the LGBT community that conventionally became a victim of criminalisation and continues to become the subject of the threat of social stigma and discrimination, the widespread digital profiling presents its own threats. With the recognition of the same sex marriage being unrecognized, such weaknesses are enhanced by the realization that through the development of the fictions of law, same sex couples are subjected to privacy invasions using digital governance systems. Furthermore, there are not enough defenses against discriminatory outcomes in AI-based applications or algorithmic decision-making robots applied in law enforcement, benefits determination, and the delivery of online services.

This paper will examine an intricate crossroads of cyber laws, digital identity systems, privacy rights and constitutional values in India and specifically how the two systems affect LGBT people. It asserts that the promises that India has made to privacy, dignity, and equality, as detailed in its constitution, would entail far-reaching reforms in legislature and institutions: scrubbing broad governmental surveillance provisions, forming new regulatory organs, same-sex marriage bills, and fortifying legal strategies against the discrimination and abuse of the vulnerable. Devoid of these holistic reform measures, the idealess system of digital governance will still discriminate against the marginalised groups even after the courts have proclaimed constitutional equality