Supreme Court rules gay sex is criminal offence

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalises homosexuality.

Setting aside a Delhi High Court that had struck down Section 377, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court said there is no constitutional indemnity provided to Section 377 and hence it is constitutionally valid. If the Section has to be changed, it is upto Parliament to do so, the court said.

The court was dealing with a bunch of petitions challenging the Delhi High Court judgement decriminalising gay sex among consenting adults in private.

The bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya delivered the verdict on petitions of anti-gay right activists, social and religious organisations against the 2009 verdict of the high court, which decriminalised gay sex.

The judgement was pronounced by Justice Singhvi on his last working day as he will be retiring on Wednesday. The bench had reserved its order in March last year after granting day-to-day hearing of the case from February 15, 2012.

While hearing the appeal, the apex court had pulled up the Centre for its "casual" approach on decriminalisation of homosexuality and also expressed concern over the Parliament not discussing such important issues and blaming judiciary instead for its "over-reach".

While pleading for decriminalisation of gay sex, the Centre had subsequently told the court that the anti-gay law in the country had resulted from British colonialism and the Indian society was much more tolerant towards homosexuality.

The Delhi High Court had on July 2, in 2009 decriminalised gay sex as provided in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had ruled that sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.

Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC makes gay sex a criminal offence entailing punishment up to life term. Senior BJP leader B P Singhal, who died in October last year, had challenged the high court verdict in the Supreme Court saying such acts are illegal, immoral and against the ethos of Indian culture.

Religious organisations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance too had challenged the judgement.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131211/news-current-affairs/article/gay-sex-criminal-offence-supreme-court

Now wait till they bring back Sati and child marriage and the practice of murdering rape victims for alleged loss of chastity and criminalize Valentine's Day and live in and dating at the behest of religious nutjobs. After all respecting religious sentiments and defending Indian ethos is of paramount importance. This is a country where marital rape is legal and consensual sex between homo/bisexual adults is criminal. All in the name of culture and family values, and in case other arguments fail - religious sentiments.

Some people are expecting the Parliament to undo the SC verdict and rule in favour of LGBT communities. And I'm like, are you insane? SC and HCs had always been our best hope for any kind of progressive move. Those 545 MPs have their own prejudices and priorities to look after. They are, for all practical purpose, the toy boys of the religious fundamentalists. There's not a single party that would dare to make a move on that front, especially on an issue where all religious (dick)heads are united against. And it becomes even more obvious when you count the fact that the right wing chaddis are set to get the crown in 2014.

What's interesting is to look where the impetus against DHC 2009 verdict came from. Here's the list of chief petitioners against the previous ruling that held the 'against the order of nature' aspect of 377 unconstitutional:

1. All India Muslim Personal Law Board
2. Utkal Christian Council
3. Apostolic Churches Alliance
4. Tamil Nadu Muslim Munn Kazhgam
5. SD Pratinidhi Sabha
6. Astrologer Suresh Kumar Kaushal
7. Yoga guru Ramdev's disciple S K Tijarawala

I remember during the MOTWs someone thought I freak too much against religions. Well, to that person, anyone who wishes to live in a free and equal world can never really freak enough against religion.

It was quite shocking. And I've no hope from the Legislature. But hope SC is pressurized into reviewing its decision after the public and media outrage like it did to grant relief to Campa Cola compound residents following media brouhaha. We can only hope. But heck, the news is depressing.


P.S. Rehanism, I've a small observation to make. No idea about Islam, Christianity or Semitism, but homosexuality was not traditionally taboo in ancient Hinduism like Ramdev and the dhongi Sanatanis claim. Just saying.Edited by krystal_watz - 10 years ago

Hi guys

hi

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

It was quite shocking. And I've no hope from the Legislature. But hope SC is pressurized into reviewing its decision after the public and media outrage like it did to grant relief to Campa Cola compound residents following media brouhaha. We can only hope. But heck, the news is depressing.


P.S. Rehanism, I've a small observation to make. No idea about Islam, Christianity or Semitism, but homosexuality was not traditionally taboo in ancient Hinduism like Ramdev and the dhongi Sanatanis claim. Just saying.

I can't say that with certainty because orthodox Brahmins and the puritans have always seen homosexuals with disdain. Manusmriti and Chanakya's Arthashastra consider homosexuality a crime punishable by death or some form of mutilation. However there may have been cultures like Tantras who were more tolerant towards homosexuality. But since Hinduism at present, despite its diversity and heterogeneity, is largely represented by the views of Brahmins and Vaishnavas (both hardcore puritanical and misogynistic sects), I think its irrelevant to offer such apologies of ancient Hindus being more liberal. It serves no real purpose.

The point here is why a secular state should allow itself to be repeatedly bullied by religious elements and continue to compromise with basic human values for the sake of not offending religious sentiments?

^^I read the news in detail in the newspaper this morning, and from what it appears, the Naz Foundation was unable to prove the claim of sexuality being a fundamental right. According to the SC panel of judges, there is no provision of "not discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation" in the Constitution, and hence, the law could not be termed unconstitutional. 😕

One ray of hope is that many of the ruling party leaders like Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, Shashi Tharoor and Milind Deora have made public statements in opposition to the SC verdict and 377 in general. However the bad news is Congress has made itself so unpopular that anything they say is being dismissed as anti-national and foreign conspiracy by the ever increasing right wing bandwagon. Hopefully they trash 377 before they themselves are trashed out in General Elections next year, because if that doesn't happen there's hardly any hope that LGBT community will get any justice any time soon.

The S.P. is already opposing any move to amend the Act. BJP has taken a non-commital stance and the AAP is silent. I don't see much hope, except for a review consideration from the SC itself. One thing we can pray for to happen, is that this issue gets magnified by the media to such an extent that it starts looking like a tool to woo the young voters. If that were to happen, there can be some progress.

whats the big hassle here when the law seems impeccable ?