{"id":5823,"date":"2025-06-17T02:12:37","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T20:42:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=5823"},"modified":"2025-06-17T02:36:01","modified_gmt":"2025-06-16T21:06:01","slug":"navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 1980 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"5823\" class=\"elementor elementor-5823\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-dc50661 elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"dc50661\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-118bffff\" data-id=\"118bffff\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-602369e6 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"602369e6\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-41c5ec54\" data-id=\"41c5ec54\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-3bcb9ce4 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"3bcb9ce4\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 2018 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-40b6a638 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"40b6a638\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1536\" height=\"864\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fawyerz-49-1536x864.png\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-5824\" alt=\"Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fawyerz-49-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fawyerz-49-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fawyerz-49-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fawyerz-49-150x84.png 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fawyerz-49-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fawyerz-49.png 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1536px) 100vw, 1536px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-5420b053 elementor-grid-0 elementor-widget elementor-widget-wpr-sharing-buttons\" data-id=\"5420b053\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"wpr-sharing-buttons.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"wpr-sharing-buttons elementor-grid wpr-sharing-official wpr-sharing-label-off wpr-sharing-label-tr\"><div class=\"elementor-grid-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/\" class=\"wpr-sharing-icon wpr-sharing-facebook-f\" title=\"\" target=\"_blank\"><i class=\"fab fa-facebook-f\"><\/i><\/a><\/div><div class=\"elementor-grid-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/&title=Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 1980 (Case Summary)&summary=This constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the IPC arose from petitions filed by members of the LGBTQ+ community. The case raised critical questions about the right to dignity, privacy, and equality under the Constitution&source=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/\" class=\"wpr-sharing-icon wpr-sharing-linkedin-in\" title=\"\" target=\"_blank\"><i class=\"fab fa-linkedin-in\"><\/i><\/a><\/div><div class=\"elementor-grid-item\"><a href=\"mailto:?subject=Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 1980 (Case Summary)&body=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/\" class=\"wpr-sharing-icon wpr-sharing-envelope\" title=\"\" target=\"_blank\"><i class=\"fas fa-envelope\"><\/i><\/a><\/div><div class=\"elementor-grid-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send?text=*Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 1980 (Case Summary)*%0ahttps:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/\" class=\"wpr-sharing-icon wpr-sharing-whatsapp\" title=\"\" target=\"_blank\"><i class=\"fab fa-whatsapp\"><\/i><\/a><\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-1129676c elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"1129676c\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the IPC arose from petitions filed by members of the LGBTQ+ community. The case raised critical questions about the right to dignity, privacy, and equality under the Constitution, and set the stage for a re-examination of colonial-era laws criminalizing consensual sexual conduct between adults.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/#Facts_of_Navtej_Singh_Johar_v_Union_of_India\" >Facts of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/#Judgment_of_Navtej_Singh_Johar_v_Union_of_India\" >Judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/bharatiya-nyaya-sahita\/navtej-singh-johar-v-union-of-india\/#Refer_to_the_Judgment_below\" >Refer to the Judgment below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Navtej_Singh_Johar_v_Union_of_India\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Navtej Singh Johar, a dancer and LGBTQ+ rights activist, along with other petitioners, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377 IPC.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 377 criminalized &#8220;carnal intercourse against the order of nature,&#8221; which was interpreted to include consensual homosexual acts.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petitioners argued that the provision violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case followed the Supreme Court\u2019s earlier decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), which had upheld the validity of Section 377.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petitioners sought reconsideration of the 2013 ruling<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution?\u00a0<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether individuals have a fundamental right to their sexual orientation and the freedom to express it?\u00a0<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation requires reconsideration?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009), the Delhi High Court had decriminalized consensual homosexual acts among adults by reading down Section 377. However, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), the Supreme Court reversed the Delhi High Court&#8217;s decision and upheld the constitutionality of Section 377. The present case was a writ petition filed directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the correctness of the 2013 decision.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/><\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Navtej_Singh_Johar_v_Union_of_India\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court unanimously held that Section 377 IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults in private, was unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the Constitution guarantees to every individual the right to equality, dignity, privacy, and freedom of expression, regardless of their sexual orientation. It recognized that sexual orientation is an innate attribute of identity and cannot be a ground for discrimination.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court held that criminalizing consensual homosexual acts undermined the dignity and self-worth of individuals and perpetuated stigma, harassment, and violence against the LGBTQ+ community. It noted that the application of Section 377 had led to the denial of basic rights and freedoms and reinforced social prejudices. The bench clarified that constitutional morality must prevail over societal morality and that the rights of a minority cannot be held hostage to the views of the majority.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court reaffirmed the right to privacy as established in <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, held that the right to make intimate decisions regarding one\u2019s body and relationships lies at the core of individual autonomy protected under Article 21. It also held that Section 377 violated Article 14 by being arbitrary and overbroad, as it criminalized even consensual acts between adults without a rational basis. Furthermore, it violated Article 15 by discriminating on the grounds of sex, which includes sexual orientation, and Article 19 by curbing freedom of expression and identity.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The decision in <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (2013) was explicitly overruled. The Court clarified that while Section 377 would remain applicable to non-consensual acts and acts involving minors or animals, it would no longer apply to consensual sexual conduct between adults. The Court urged the government and society at large to work towards the protection and inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals, emphasizing that they are entitled to equal citizenship, without fear or shame.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Refer_to_the_Judgment_below\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Refer to the Judgment below<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-6944a23a elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"6944a23a\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Navtej-Singh-Johar-v.-Union-of-India-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-7776ad6c elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-column-slider-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"7776ad6c\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5d20101c\" data-id=\"5d20101c\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the IPC arose from petitions filed by members of the LGBTQ+ community. The case raised critical questions about the right to dignity, privacy, and equality under the Constitution<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5824,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[19],"tags":[164],"class_list":["post-5823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bharatiya-nyaya-sahita","tag-section-377-of-the-ipc"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5823"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5823\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5830,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5823\/revisions\/5830"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}