In the light of the recent demonstrations by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered), seeking rights and dignity at par with others, and the celebrations of the sexual minority on the likelihood of repeal to Section 377 of Indian Penal Code , let me invite your attention to the text of controversial 377 IPC
Section 377 of IPC says
Unnatural Offences – “Whoever voluntarily hascarnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this Section. ”
I also agree to the demonstrators that it is time to end the social stigma to the LGBT. However I’m confused with the meaning and spirit of Section 377 IPC and its direct relation to gay rights. While it is necessary to stop viewing gays and lesbians as criminals, repeal of 377 IPC will have serious consequences.
Justice M F Saldanha, former judge of the Bombay and Karnataka High Court, who has had to make some judgments based on Section 377, says that says that the Union government has to deal with this issue very carefully and scrapping the law is not as easy as it is made out to be by some gay rights activists.
He Said “Look sex is a biological and from what I have been reading about this issue there is substance in what they are saying. Their contention that sex is biological and same sex relations are an individual’s preference. I don’t think that scapping this section will make any difference to gay rights. Tell me how many cases have been reported under this section. People with a different sexual orientation continue to do what they want and having this law makes no difference to them.”
The Term Paper on IPC Mens Rea
Mens rea is a technical term, generally taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition, the absence of which on any particular occasion negatives the condition of crime. It is one of the essential ingredients of criminal liability.’ A criminal offence is committed only when an act, which is forbidden by law, is done voluntarily. The term mens rea has been given to the volition, which is the ...
” When I dealt with a case of sodomy of a child, I had only Section 377 under which I could convict the accused. This is the irony. We need to examine this law carefully and ensure that there are separate laws that deal with child molestation. Bringing the entire issue of homosexuality, child molestation under the ambit of one section does not help. And yes as you pointed out a man raping a man is a rarity, but yes it could happen.
The government has to examine this aspect too and ensure that Section 377 is reworded and specifically mentions that sex between two consenting adults of the same sex shall not be an offence. But most importantly the social fallout of repealing such a section needs to be taken before any action is taken. ” He added
A suitable amendment to Section 377 of IPC could be the correct action. Hope the Government would act wisely
Advocacy
Advocacy is integral to all programs at Naz India. Naz India continues to challenge assumptions around sexual health issues and works to influence the government’s health policy.
Naz advocates for the right to non-discriminatory treatment of positive people and fights to ensure that instances of discrimination are addressed appropriately.
Naz has strong linkages with human rights groups and agencies such as Lawyers Collective, Human Right Law Network, Amnesty International, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. NI has collaborated with these agencies to address cases of sexual rights abuse.
Naz India is working with the police services in New Delhi. We conduct weekly training workshops for police personnel. The training aims to build awareness of HIV / AIDS and tackles issues of discrimination, physical harassment, corruption and Human Rights.
Section 377
Delhi high court decriminalizes consensual homosexual sex between adults
The Term Paper on Oral Intercourse Sexual Penis Sex
GLOSSARY OF SEXUAL TERMS AAC/DC... BISEXUAL ACTIVE... THE AGGRESSIVE SEXUAL PARTNER AGATE... A SMALL PENIS ANA LINGUS... KISSING, LICKING AND PENETRATION OF THE ANUS BY THE TONGUE ANGEL... MALE WHO PAYS FOR SEXUAL ACTS ANUS... THE OPENING OF THE RECTUM AROUND THE WORLD... THE ACT OF KISSING THE ENTIRE BODY AS A PRELUDE TO SEX ASEXUAL... ABSENCE OF SEXUAL FEELING ASS... THE BUTKS ASSHOLE... THE ...
Naz India’s eight-year-long battle sees a successful conclusion!
Click here to view the judgement on Section 377
Naz India’s efforts in sensitizing the government to different issues related to the epidemic include the amendment of Section 377 of the Indian penal code, known as the anti-sodomy law. This act criminalized same sex sexual behavior irrespective of the consent of the people involved, and thereby proved to be one of the most significant barriers in effective HIV/AIDS interventions with sexual minorities.
MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) in India were penalized under Section 377, which could be used against anyone who ‘voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. Section 377 was often exploited by the police and others to harass, extort money from, blackmail, and even rape MSM, mainly those from the lower socio-economic classes who have little knowledge of the law and their rights. Section 377 was also used by the police to restrict gay-related activities and to justify raids on parties and events.
In September 2001, Naz India filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to challenge section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in the Delhi High Court.
On July 2, 2009, the Delhi High Court pronounced that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be read down to exclude consensual sex between adults. “We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution”, ruled Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar in the case of Naz Foundation (India) Trust v. Government of NCT, Delhi and Others.
We heartily welcome this verdict, which shows respect for human rights – irrespective of one’s sexuality or sexual orientation.
The criminalization of homosexuality in India dates back to 1860, when the country was still under British rule. The statute, officially Indian Penal Code Chapter XVI, Section 377, punishes “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” Violations are punishable by a prison term up to 10 years and possible fines.
The Essay on India International Management Analysis
India - International Management Analysis I would like to start by saying that India despite it long history gained independence from Great Britain only in 1947. Ever since the country faces different disputes over territory with Pakistan, China and Bangladesh and enjoys massive overpopulation, environmental degradation, extensive poverty, in spite of impressive economic growth in the country ( ...
In June of 2008, three Indian cities, Bangaluru, Calcutta and New Delhi, held their first LGBT pride marches just days before the Naz Foundation India Trust, an activist group, presented arguments before the New Delhi High Court to repeal Section 377.
Gay advocacy groups argue that Section 377 has been used by Indian police to discriminate against and blackmail India’s LGBT citizens. “In India, gays and lesbians still live highly closeted lives,” Vikram Doctor, a member of the Queer Media Collective, told The Washington Post. “There is still violence. There are still many desperate suicides by gay couples. There is still harassment. And there is still intense pressure to marry those they do not want to be with. But today we have a voice.”
If decriminalization of Section 377 is successful, it is unclear what affect the reversal will have on India’s transgendered population. Time of Indiawrites, “Even if the HC [New Delhi High Court] rules in favour of transgenders [known as hijras or eunuchs] and declares Section 377 of IPC unconstitutional, it would mean little if corresponding legal rights were not conferred on them through amendments to the Constitution, as well as personal laws, that require moving of appropriate bills in Parliament by the political class.”
Welcome |
‘Voices Against 377’ is a coalition of Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) and progressive groups based in Delhi. It is a point of intersection and dialogue between various social movements that these groups represent, where a united voice is being articulated against Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes adult and consensual sexual acts deemed to be against the order of nature.
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is cited below:
“377. Unnatural Offences.
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”The law penalizes certain sexual acts equally. For example oral sex, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual; even penile-masturbation of one person by another – is considered criminal. Although facially neutral, the law has effectively stigmatized and criminalized a section more than others, namely same-sex desiring people, including those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), hijra, kothi and other Queer people. The law has been used by the police to intimidate same sex desiring people and has been a source of serious human rights violations. |
The Term Paper on Employment Law Sexual Orientation
... exist in the European Union Law for lesbians and gay men alleging discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. The difficulty in ... from these changes. It is clear from reading the Sex Discrimination Act that the intention of legislation was to prevent discrimination ... decided that section 1 of the SDA was unclear on the meaning of "sex." Both Scottish and English case law has established ...
Impact of Decriminalization of Section 377
In a historic judgment, the Delhi High Court amended section 377 of the IPC on 2ndJuly, 2009. It decriminalised adult consensual sexual activity. Rushalini Rajkumar writes.
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code reads:
‘Unnatural offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall be liable to fine’.
Explanation- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
In an historic judgment, the Delhi High Court amended section 377 of the IPC on 2ndJuly, 2009. It decriminalised adult consensual sexual activity. A Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Murlidhar said, “We declare section 377 of IPC, in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, as violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.”
It was a petition filed by Voices Against 377 and Naz Foundation (India) Trust that brought about the High Court ruling. This was passed amidst two contradictory affidavits filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Home Ministry cited public morality as its prime argument to retain the section while the Ministry of Health insisted on reading down of the section because it hampered HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.
This section came into place along with the rest of the Indian Penal Code in 1860. These offences were considered harmful to the entire society and not only to the victim. Therefore so far, the issue of consent between the partners was considered irrelevant with regard to Section 377.
The Essay on Sections of the Mental Health Act Explained
For the purpose of the act a person who has a learning disability is not considered to be suffering from a mental disorder nor require any hospital treatment unless their disability has been associated with “abnormal aggressive behaviour or irresponsible conduct on their part”. Mind 2010 point out that a person could be detained without their disability without their disability being described as ...
The law considered only penile vaginal penetration as ‘natural’ and it not only ignored all other sexual interaction but also criminalized it. Section 377 started of by saying ‘Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section’. It can be assumed that it initially probably intended to focus on sodomy or anal intercourse. However, due to the interpretations of the various judges in accordance with different cases it had broadened its scope of application independently and when read with other sections of the IPC. Over time, the section had come to criminalize acts of oral as well as anal sex with a minor as well as an adult. Also, oral sex whether it is performed between two men or two women or between a man and a woman was an offense under this statute.
It is very important to note that this section only penalized certain sexual activity and not any sexual orientation or identity i.e. being a homosexual or bisexual by itself was not a crime. But this law made the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) population a criminal subject fit to be harassed and ensured invisibility in the civil law as a rights holder.
While this amendment was a first step in the right direction in empowering this marginalized community it is now essential for the state to enact specific laws to govern certain non-consensual sexual activities which were and will continue to be prosecuted under this section. Child sex abuse, especially male child sex abuse and cases of male rape and further cases where sodomy is forced upon a married woman (since, the rape laws in India only recognize penile-vaginal sex).
With this regard the 172nd Law Commission Report suggested making the laws on rape gender neutral by replacing the term ‘rape’ with ‘sexual assault’. This would also solve the issue of same-sex assault.
Clearly, this progressive judgment has been passed in opposition to the prevailing majoritarian belief system. This is a step towards achieving equality by acknowledging the diversity in sexual and gender orientation, by decriminalizing certain sexual acts which are against the dominant ‘norm’.
Decriminalization alone is not a panacea to liberate the community rather the attitude toward them should change through the entire gamut of laws. Further, legal reform should be complimented with societal acceptance but legal reform could not have waited for universal acceptance since this law posed a threat to the very existence of an entire community.
The Dissertation on Gay Parenting Sexual Parents
Lesbian and Gay Parenting. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS Charlotte J. Patterson University of Virginia Like families headed by heterosexual parents, lesbian and gay parents and their children are a diverse group (Martin, 1993). Unlike heterosexual parents and their children, however, lesbian and gay parents and their children are often subject to prejudice because of sexual orientation that turns ...
It is interesting to note that Section 377 from the penal code has been repealed, and the comment for the repeal is that “This amendment updates the Penal Code to ensure it remains relevant in today’s context.”
So, with the repeal of Section 377, what does it means? Quoting from Ministry of Home Affairs website:
“Any sexual act, e.g. oral and anal sex, between a consenting heterosexual couple who are 16 years of age and above (done in private) will no longer be criminalised, i.e. oral and anal sex will therefore no longer be criminalised.”
Then, what about Section 377A? As Section 377A has been retained, it means that any “gross indecency” between any gay couple (specifically only for males), regardless of in public or private, is still a crime.
The comment for the retaining of Section 377A, as quoting from Ministry of Home Affairs website:
“Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. MHA recognizes that we are generally conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve.”
So, does that means that it is acceptable for the public that heterosexual couples can have the same “gross indecency” but it is not acceptable for gay couples (specifically only for males) to have “gross indecency”. And this view holds even when the “gross indecency” are performed in their own private bedrooms. Does it smells of homophobia (male-male-phobia)?
As a primer to whose who is not sure of what is Section 377 and Section 377A
Section 377 (Unnatural offences)
All forms of carnal intercourse against the order of nature (other than vaginal intercourse) between a man, woman, or an animal, are criminalised; regardless of whether consent was obtained or if the act was performed in a private or public place.
Section 377A (Outrages on decency)
It is an offence for any male person, who in public or private, commits an act of gross indecency with another male person.
The information on repealing 377 and retaining 377A is up-to-date as pertaining to the 17 Sep 2007, Summary of the key amendments to the penal code, Press Release from Ministry of Home Affairs.
http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=1115
In conclusion:
My personal interpretation is that, for example, an oral sex (OS),
– can be performed legally (without contravening any law, or is not a criminal) by a hetersexual couple,
– but cannot be performed legally (contravene Section 377A, or is criminal) by a gay couple (specifically only for males).
GAY RIGHTS: SECTION 377’S ROOTS IN BRITISH COLONIALISM (HRW REPORT)
Human Rights Watch has inserted itself forcefully into India’s ongoing debate about the constitutionality of homosexuality–and the campaign to repeal Section 377, which prohibits homosexual acts–with an extensive new report, called “This Alien Legacy: The Origins of ‘Sodomy’ Laws in British Colonialism.”The report looks at laws that oppress gays throughout the former British empire, and their roots in medieval British customs. But the focus is on India, and how its Penal Code was a model for other countries throughout Asia and Africa.
From the introduction:
Five years earlier in the long-running case, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs had submitted an affidavit supporting Section 377. It said: “The law does not run separately from society. It only reflects the perception of the society…. When Section 377 was brought under the statute as an act of criminality, it responded to the values and mores of the time in the Indian society.” The ministry claimed that, by comparison to the United Kingdom and the United States of America, “Objectively speaking, there is no such tolerance to [the] practice of homosexuality/lesbianism in
the Indian society.”
This was sheer amnesia. Section 377, at its origin, did not respond to Indian society or its “values or mores” at all. British colonial governors imposed it on India undemocratically. It reflected only “the British Judeo-Christian values of the time,” as the petitioners in the case told the court in reply.
The report gives a fascinating history of sodomy laws, in English treatises called Fleta and Britton.
Fleta required that “Apostate Christians, sorcerers, and the like should be drawn and burnt. Those who have connections with Jews and Jewesses or are guilty of bestiality or sodomy shall be buried alive in the ground, provided they be taken in the act and convicted by lawful and open testimony.”
And further down:
Less well known is that codifying sexual offenses began far earlier, in 1825, when the mandate to devise law for the Indian colony was handed to the politician and historian Thomas Babington Macaulay.
The colonies, according to the report, were seen as “perfect field for experiments in rationalizing and systematizing law,” in that the government could avoid the normal messiness associated with democracy and popular debate. The British were also convinced that the natives were morally infectious.
The European codifiers certainly felt the mission of moral reform—to correct and Christianize “native” custom. Yet there was also the need to protect the Christians from corruption. Historians have documented how British officials feared that soldiers and colonial administrators—particularly those without wives at hand—would turn to sodomy in these decadent, hot surroundings.
Macaulay came up with his draft of the Indian Penal Code by 1837, but it took until 1860 for it to come into effect. I’m still going through the report, but here are some other tidbits:
* The British considered hijra communities in India a “distasteful nuisance.”91 Colonial authorities obstructed their traditional rights, including rights to land and money they owned, in villages across India.92 Anti-begging provisions in vagrancy laws, such as those in the Bombay and Bengal Presidencies, also criminalized the customary social niche of hijras as mendicants. The 1897 amendment—subtitled “An Act for the Registration of Criminal Tribes and Eunuchs”—linked “eunuch” identity to Section 377. It showed how the vagrancy and sodomy provisions stemmed from the same motive: to place not just behaviors, but classes of people, under surveillance and control. Colonial vagrancy laws ultimately made the “personal condition” of being a hijra a criminal offence.
* Various Indian forensic-medical experts followed the writings of Tardieu and Glaster, adding new parameters based on their own understanding of the “difference” in sodomites’s bodies. They claimed the “catamite” or “sodomite” as a scientifically separate manner of person, physically distinct.
* Reports also continue in India of forced detention of lesbians and gays in psychiatric hospitals, and involuntary aversion therapy and other forms of abuse aimed at “converting” people to heterosexuality. In April 2001 the National Human Rights Commission of India declared that it “did not want to take cognizance” of a case objecting to these medical abuses. The commission stated that “sexual minority rights did not fall under the purview of human rights.” Reportedly a member of the Commission told the press, “Homosexuality is an offence under IPC, isn’t it? So, do you want us to take cognizance of something that is an offence?”
The report ends by asking all governments to de-criminalize homosexuality. That battle is currently playing out in the Delhi High Court. From The Times of India, “When will gays win their rights?”:
The section calls for up to life in prison for “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. And now, with all hearings concluded — including the centre’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) PP Malhotra’s statement that the judiciary had no right to legalise gay sex — it’s time for a verdict.
In the months leading up to the verdict — for which a date has not been set yet — the home ministry has fought fiercely to keep the law intact, even as the health ministry called for a more progressive approach in dealing with the issue.
More from an article in the Indian Express:
Malhotra has asserted that this is the job of Parliament and the will of Parliament was represented by the MPs. “The states know the will of the people, the difficulties of their people living in the states. Nobody has suggested change of law or interpretation of law in such a manner as the petitioner wants to interpret,” the document says. He also said “it may not be proper for the hon’ble court to assume the role and the will of the people or to act as a Parliament to change the law by giving its interpretation as a petitioner seeks”.
In 1965, when the House of Lords debated the proposal to legalise homosexual relations between consenting adults, the legendary Field Marshal Montgomery proposed a curious amendment. Incensed over what he called “this most abominable bestiality”, he argued the age of consent should be raised to 80! At least, he barked, “one has the old age pension to pay for any blackmail.”
It is entirely possible that Monty’s very ingenuous suggestion—which, predictably, was turned down by his fellow peers—may find takers among Indian MPs and religious figures agitated by the Delhi High Court’s judgment to de-criminalise gay sex between consenting adults over the age of 21.
That the private conduct of two responsible adults should not be the business of the state—unless it jeopardises national security, public peace and public health or constitutes a fraud—has long been recognised as a tenet of personal freedom. Carnal relations involving the same sex may well be against the laws of nature and, therefore, “unnatural”. But there is nothing in the act that corresponds to the common sense definition of criminality. If voluntary gay sex is deemed criminal, the law may as well attach the tag of criminality to adultery—a move that could well result in considerable discomfiture to some of those who are most indignant about the High Court decision.
If the High Court had confined its judgment to merely removing the stigma of criminality attached to queers (oh how this innocent word has been tarred), it would have done its bit to ensure that laws keep pace with changing social mores. Unfortunately, the High Court went a bit over the top. It was bad enough to inject B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru and the Sonia Gandhi doctrine of inclusiveness into the pantheon of gay rights, what was more ominous was the incorporation of minority sexual habits into the notion of equality.
It is one thing to accommodate gay sexual preferences into a loose framework of individual freedom so that a minusculity is spared needless harassment, it is a different matter to establish a moral equivalence between same sex relationships and man-woman relationships. The judges may not have intended to put them on par but that is the unintended consequence of pitting an arcane clause of the IPC against some of the fundamental rights in the Constitution.
If the contentious part of section 377 violates the Constitution, as the High Court has decided, why was it allowed to remain in the statutes for a full 59 years? Like the classification of communities into “criminal tribes”, why wasn’t it junked earlier? If the inspiration for section 377 was Victorian morality, why wasn’t it re-examined after the passage of the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 in Britain?
The High Court need not have undertaken surgery with general anaesthesia to remove a tiny wart in our laws.
The reason why 377 persisted for so long owed partly to the colonial inheritance. But far more important, it found a place in the statutes because it corresponded to an unspoken social definition of ordinary decencies. This perception has changed over time, just as polygamy and child marriage have been outlawed for most communities, the age of consent raised progressively and the law of primogeniture scrapped. Legal strictures against consensual adult homosexuality had to go because it was perceived as unjust and unfair.
This is not to suggest that homosexuality is now kosher. The fierce opposition to the High Court judgment from all religious groups (a bizarre example of sarva dharma samabhav) indicate that same sex relationships may be tolerated but they have no wider social sanction. The judgment has merely defined gays as a distinct minority group defined by their sexual preferences.
To my mind this is fair. There is absolutely no reason why decent individuals such as the writer Vikram Seth—who has spoken about his gayness with sensitivity—should have the threat of criminality dangling before him for something that is clearly a very private emotion.
No one wants a repetition of the disagreeable witch-hunt of Oscar Wilde in the 21st century and few appreciate the rabid homophobic utterances of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Gays have the right to live their life with dignity and without the fear of persecution.
Unfortunately, the High Court judgment has opened the floodgates of what may best be called aggressive gay evangelism. If the experience of the West is anything to go by, it is a matter of time before there are demands—backed by the usual clutch of NGOs and international agencies—to lower the age of consent, accommodate gay marriages within a legal framework and allow the right of adoption to gay couples.
In Britain, for example, the age of consent for voluntary homosexuality was 21 at the time of the Sexual Offences Act of 1967; by 2000, this was lowered to 16 despite the fierces opposition of the House of Lords and the Christian churches; now there are demands for legalising gay marriages and altering the school curricula to show that man-woman relations are not the natural order of society.
Equally insidious, militant gay campaigners have made life impossible for those gays who want to lead private lives without “coming out” and flaunting their sexuality. In 1974, the Gay Liberation Front “outed” E.M. Forster and denounced him as a “downcast gay” for keeping his sexual preferences private.
A perverse in-your-face-gayness has come to define gay activism. Sadly, the media is doing its bit to encourage it.
The invocation of equality and the principles of non-discrimination are a double-edged sword. What may begin as an innocent gesture of accommodation and tolerance has the potential to spin out of control. The gesture of de-criminalising homosexuality—which is different from endorsing it—has to be accompanied by a robust assertion of the state and society’s commitment to family values.
Unless, of course, we see the recognition of gay rights as a precursor to a gender-neutral, non-denominational, secular, uniform civil code—just as the Constitution-makers desired. It may be worth floating the suggestion. It is guaranteed to elicit the same response as Monty’s bluster.
The Delhi Court judgment said that faith-driven morality had no place in law. “In our scheme of things, Constitutional morality must outweigh the arguments of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view.” Will the judiciary try and put this principle into practice?
Remember Shah Bano?
The Centre is expected to clear its stand in the Delhi High Court on Thursday on a law which makes homosexuality illegal in this country. The law can even send someone for life in prison.
At the moment, the government is divided on the issue. The Home Ministry has told the court that by treating homosexuality as a criminal offence, the government is protecting public health and morals.
But the National Aids Control Organisation (NACO), which comes under the Ministry of Health, says that the law has to go.
The controversy over legalising homosexuality became the subject of a petition in court for the first time in 2001. An NGO Naz Foundation went to the Delhi High Court demanding the striking down of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Under this law, homosexuality can invite punishment, even life imprisonment.
The Indian Penal Code, as we know it today, was formulated by the British way back in 1860. It was then that Section 377 was also introduced. Interestingly, the UK government repealed this law in 1967. And those fighting the law say it’s high time the Indian government followed suit. But the debate on this highly contentious issue is far from over.
While the Health Ministry says that it is necessary to decriminalise homosexuality in order to tackle HIV/AIDS, the Home Ministry has opposed it.
According to the Home Ministry affidavit, interference by public authority in the interest of public safety and protection of health and morals is permissible. It also says that there’s no such tolerance to practice of homosexuality/lesbianism in the Indian society.
The content in affidavit prompted the court to remark that homosexuality is not a health hazard. But it is affecting the Home Ministry. So, how come the government is taking such a contradictory stand? If they cannot decide, then we will.
”I think this fight is about human rights. This fight is about privacy, dignity and equality. This section is abrasive in violating the human rights of those who are of same sex defining themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender,” says Sumit Baudh, member of Voices Against 377.
Gay activists also say that Section 377 is presently misused by law enforcement agencies to harass people.
Thus, amid the entire furore, Thursday is the decisive day for the future of homosexuality in the country.
The Delhi High Court today asked Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra to appear before it on June 2 over a law which makes homosexuality illegal in the country and can penalise a person.
A division bench of Justices A K Sikri and J R Midha asked the Government counsel to make clear its stand on June 2.
The affidavit filed by NACO, a division of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, was against enforcement of Section 377 of the IPC entailing punishment up to life imprisonment for indulging in unnatural sex.
However, the government is divided on the issue. The Home Ministry has told the court that by treating homosexuality as a criminal offence, the government is protecting public health and morals.
But, the National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) says that the law has to go for sake of battle against AIDS.
The Indian Penal Code, as we know it today, was formulated by the British way back in 1860. It was then that Section 377 was also introduced. Ironically, the UK government repealed this law in 1967.
The content in the affidavit made the court to remark that homosexuality was not a health hazard. The judges said, “But it seems to be affecting the Home Ministry. So, how come the government is taking such a contradictory stand? If they cannot decide, then we will”.
The Delhi High Court Wednesday said it would hear a petition seeking to decriminalise homosexuality in India on a priority basis as it was an “urgent matter”.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar asked all parties to file their written arguments in the case and fixed Sep 18 and 19 for the next hearing.
“This is an urgent matter and we will not keep it pending for so long and will hear it expeditiously,” the bench said.
The parties include the central government, the Delhi government and V.P. Singhal, who opposes legalising homosexuality on grounds of traditional morality.
Naz Foundation, an NGO that works against the spread of HIV, filed the petition in December 2002, seeking decriminalisation of homosexual acts among consenting adults. It pleaded that the case be heard on a day-to-day basis as the matter was urgent.
In the last hearing May 22, Justice A.K. Sikri’s bench had sought the assistance of the attorney general in dealing with the petition as it sought an amendment to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which declares all homosexual acts criminal with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
Naz Foundation’s petition seeks the court’s direction to declare Section 377 “unconstitutional”. It contends that the law violates a citizen’s fundamental rights and promotes illegal sex.
“Section 377 demeans a gay man. It silences a gay man into accepting the discrimination against him. He will not come out to declare his orientation,” the NGO contended.
The central government in its reply took a contradictory stand. While the home ministry favoured retaining Section 377, the health ministry was against it as it believed it hampered efforts to check HIV-AIDS.
The home ministry affidavit said: “Indian society strongly disapproves of homosexuality and disapproval is strong enough to justify it being treated as a criminal offence even where consenting adults indulge in it in private.
“Deletion of the section can open floodgates of delinquent behaviour and be misconstrued as providing unbridled licence for homosexual acts.”
The health ministry, however, feels otherwise.
“Enforcement of Section 377 can adversely contribute to pushing persons suffering from HIV underground which would make such risky sexual practices go unnoticed,” said an affidavit filed by National Aids Control Organisation (NACO), which comes under the health ministry.
NACO said that homosexuals were more vulnerable to HIV infection. It pointed out that there were around 2.5 million male homosexuals and around eight percent of them were infected with HIV, whereas among heterosexuals the infection rate was only one percent.
“Men having sex with men (MSM) are mostly reluctant to reveal same-sex behaviour due to fear of law enforcing agencies, pushing the infection underground and making it difficult to access them,” NACO said, adding that although 69 percent of them knew about preventing infection, only 36 percent used condoms.
MUMBAI: While the homosexuals in India have welcomed Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss’ statement seeking the removal of provisions in Section 377of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that classifies sex between two men as a criminal offence, they do not want the repeal of the section to protect the boy child from abuse.
Delhi based NGO Naz Foundation challenged arrests made under Section 377 and the Delhi High Court is hearing a petition by the Foundation.
Says, Nitin Karani, Board of Trustee of Mumbai based Humsafar Trust “Section 377 is applicable even to the heterosexuals, as it prohibits anal sex (even) between husband and wife. We are demanding that consensual sex in private between individuals not be considered illegal. But Section 377 is needed so that children are not abused. Hence, it should be read down but not abolished.”
The health ministry had supported the gay community’s call to remove the law but the home ministry was not in favour of it. “It’s nice to know people at the top level are speaking for us,” said Geeta Kumana of Mumbai based lesbian group Aanchal Trust. She was reacting to Ramadoss’ statement made on Friday at the 17th International Conference on Aids in Mexico City.
The gay and lesbian community is relieved that with immense pressure built over a period of time the government was waking up to the rights of the homosexuals in the country. However, they say the society as a whole is still to accept gays and lesbians in their fold. “When one speaks individually to parents and friends there is a conditional change and acceptance. But, when one starts agitating for rights in front of police, politician etc I find there is a huge homophobia; there is no acceptance,” rues Geeta.
A day after India’s 61st Independence Day on 16 August this year, a Queer Azaadi (Independence) March will be organised by the queer community (homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, bisexual and all those marginalised by society that labels them as ‘strange’) in Mumbai to state that while the rest of India had achieved independence from the British on 15 August1947, queer Indians were still bound by a British Raj law (Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, introduced in 1860) and Victorian puritanism.
The March aims to highlight issues that affect queer communities in India – Like Act that outlaws same-sex intercourse, forced marriage of homosexuals, harassment of queer community by using sec 377 against them etc. The closeted queer community, especially in small towns, hopes to gain visibility for their cause through this rally. Leading gays and lesbian rights group Humsafar Trust and Aanchal Trust are in the forefront of the three hours March that will start from August Kranti Maidan and end at Girgaum Chowpatty in south Mumbai.
In June this year, gays in Delhi, for the first time, marched through the heart of the city proclaiming their sexuality. The homosexual community gradually seems to be coming out in the open in India
“Carnal relations involving the same sex may well be against the laws of nature and therefore, ‘unnatural'”
Really? Care to back that dodgy asssertion with citations from credible peer-reviewed scientific journals with a decent impact factor, Swapan?
There are in excess of 1500 species in the animal kingdom that exhibit predominantly homosexual and/or bisexual behaviour. One of humanity’s closest relatives, the dwarf chimpanzee, is bisexual. Sex plays a significant role in all communal activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most common conflict-resolution tool among other primate groups which exhibit less homosexual behaviour (there is a lesson somewhere here for Hinduvatis, Islamists and Marxists who feed off the insecurities of sexually frustrated males, though that is besides the point).
From killer whales to lions to giraffes to dolphins to ducks to crabs to worms, few species has been found in which homosexual behaviour does not exist. There are a few exceptions, like insects, passerine birds (who form almost half of all bird species) and some small mammals. Another exception is of course, organisms like sea urchins and aphids, which don’t have sex at all. Hermaphroditic organisms, are of course, truly bisexual. In fact, the current best research evidence shows that animals that live a completely homosexual life can be found in most species.
funny the media is all over Baba Ramdev for suggesting Homosexuality is a disease, while the Mullahs and the Catholic priests shouting against homosexuality are completely ignored. The hazards of being a Sanathan Dharmi I guess? The show also featured a psychiatrist praising the American Psychiatric assocation for out-diseasing gayness in 73. He should have added anti-gay americans helped a much hated Bush win a second term in 2004.
Dont care about gayness, but in-yo-face homoness is definitely a very annoying affliction.
Excellent post Swapanji. I fully agree with what you have said. Decriminalizing Gay Sex is okay and a welcome step indeed but endorsing it or advertising it, as has been happening, is stretching it a bit far. As you asked promptly, if Constitution overweighs religious beleif as the court is attempted to suggest, then it’s high time that we have a Uniform Civil Code in place.
t is a interesting case. While debating in another forum, I made the following comments :
This is judicial activism at the worst. The political class is happy because somebody else did their dirty work. If the members of parliament are derelict in discharging their duties as constitution requires them to,
why do we need them?
It is irresponsible of the court to take up on itself what should have been the purview of the legislature. By doing so it abandoned precedent set in earlier judgments. Since when does the court have the sanction to set aside established law and legislate from the bench ?
The Constitution clearly established that the lawmaking belongs to the legislature, that means the political class.
These unelected, political appointees are setting a bad precedent.
The right thing for the court to do would have been to force the legislatures
to act. Is it any surprise that every little thing ends up in court. We are
becoming a litigious society.
I recall from history, an anecdote, it is appropriate I present it here:
This was when Alexander the great, defeated King Purushottam and had to sit in judgement on a dispute brought to him by two people. One
owed money to the other. That was never in dispute. What was in dispute was the speedy recovery of the money. Alexander was surprised that there was so much honesty among the local populace that they did not require promissory notes to transact the loan.
Contrast that to the modern day courts. They are taking upon themselves to write laws. They have exceeded their brief. I am appalled.
LGBT – Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender.
If the foundational credo of the modern state is based on the fundamentals of industrial market economy, parliamentary -oriented democracy,Equal opportunities to all and unmitigated individual freedom, then this scrapping of Art 377 does fit into the last condition.
But the bedrock of any modern state is the common denominator of generally acknowledged decencies, local customs and social sanction with religious decree conferred on any law / statute, whcih essentially necessitates Art 377.
TThis so-called “United progressive ” alliance which was all set to embrace this judgement to please the liberals has now developed cold feet , keeping in mind the Minority objections.
If VHP hasd been the lone voice in opposing this judgement, the anti-national, anti-hindu,secular sold-out “dhimmi” media , would have hauled the Hindutva -Wadi’s over the coals. Now, you will see the ELM media slowly toning down their stridency and start sucking with the Mullahs.
But, for the First time , this has caused a break in the ranks / alliance of the 4M Axis of evil -> Mullah,Marxist, Macaulayvadi’s and the Media.
If voluntary gay sex is deemed criminal, the law may as well attach the tag of criminality to adultery
I hear there are indeed moves afoot to make adultery a cognizable offence.
>>A perverse in-your-face-gayness has come to define gay activism. Sadly, the media is doing its bit to encourage it.
I expect media’s contrived jubilation to abruptly come to an end the moment a couple of bearded chaps go on a non-violent protest against any moves to repeal 377. Right now “liberal” journos are on a “display your liberalism” parade, but the stunt will end as soon as secular concerns begin to eclipse liberal high-mindedness.
>>Unfortunately, the High Court went a bit over the top.
Are court judgements being delivered with an eye on awards — like Magsaysay for example? Court judgements must be clinical interpretations of the the law and the constitution. There ought to be no room for delivering sermons.
Everything that happens in nature is not within the laws of nature. While the word ‘unnatural’ is dodgy, I think you are missing the point. Homosexual behaviour serves no useful ‘natural’ purpose is obvious. And its natural for a species to discourage unproductive or counter-productive sexual behaviour. Remember Darwin?
By urging for tolerance and respect for personal freedom of the LGBT community, the society is being benign. There is no need to abuse such benevolence. At anyrate laws governing a country are not absolute (or say ‘god’ given) but based on the ethics, the society sets for itself. When the society does so much for the individual, its well within its rights to expect its citizens to be productive. So the best LGBT community can expect is tolerance for their medical condition or say emotional prediliction. Nothing more, nothng less.
Remember in many animal species, the mother kills and eats disformed or unhealthy offsprings and its an acceptable behaviour in those animal communities.
And ofcouse, incest is a very common phenomenon in the animal word including the ‘holy’ cow. I’m sure you would not want the human society to legalize incest.
This is a disappointing stance to take !! Either you reject gays or accord them equality. You can’t say we will “accomodate & tolerate” you…but don’t you forget your place !! Who are we to “tolerate” anyone? What gives one group of people the right to “accomodate” another group of people !!
I haven’t read up on why and how the caste system came into being ( one of the bane’s of Hindu way of life as against many other positives)but I can imagine that whoever created it would have explained away a similar logic to the lower castes…you are a different from us, we will tolerate and accomodate you, but don’t expect more !!
And citing a perceived “perverse in your face gayness & gay activism” as a justification for that is like justifying discriminating against Hindu’s due to the antics of a Muthalik !! Hypocritic I think.
Ha! Predictably, Comrade Suren mounted the soapbox. There’s always somebody around to out-liberal the other liberals. 🙂
Well, if the “law of nature” is survival of the species, homosexuality is indeed against nature. If nature intended you to be gay, dear Suren, you’d have been endowed with the ability either to conceive and bear a child yourself, or to reproduce asexually (assuming you are male).
That homosexuality (for _some_) is not a necessarily acquired sexual orientation does not imply that it serves as “natural” a function as heterosexuality in nature’s scheme of things. Why does sex have to be pleasurable, in the first place? If it were a chore like, say, defecating, most species would have been extinct long ago, no?
This is legislation at it’s worst. I fail to get it by any stretch of imagination why Manmohan Singh government puts its entire weight behind issues of little help to themselves, but nevertheless shakes up even a bored country like India entirely. Like nuclear deal for instance, the singular “achievement” of MMS govt in the previous term. Sure “Nuclear deal for Kalavati” does sound like music to ears, but at the risk of very survival of the Government?? It took the greatest Indian political rope trick in the world to save the MMS govt. Though with the-friends-of-the-congress-media well in place, the issue was conveniently brushed beneath the carpet without much collateral damage, but in hindsight was it all worth that is debatable.
And now we have judiciary legislating by proxy for the gay rights, it seems this is the only problem separating India from Utopia. Only two scenarios can justify this. One, we want to adopt wests legislations without wasting time in debates, why to reinvent the wheel anyway?? Two, personal interests are overriding national interests. At least I can’t think of a third scenario.
Suyash thinks a refusal to accord recognition to homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality is analogous to caste discrimination. I rather think such discrimination is analogous to the discrimination intrinsic to proselytizing faiths. Ironically though, such discrimination is deemed by “liberals” and Marxist fundamentalists (I am repeating myself) as acceptable. Christian proselytizers have a problem with accepting humans beings as Hindus and Buddhists, so they assert a “right” to convert them to Christianity. One of the Ali brothers said that MK Gandhi was a great person but he was still a lesser human being than the meanest Muslim criminal because he did not proclaim Allah as the only god and Mohammed was his last prophet. This revoltingly discriminatory belief of Christian missions and Islamists to divide the world into “believers” and “unbelievers” notwithstanding, we’re told that they have a “right” to proclaim their blatantly offensive beliefs and picking a fault with that discrimination is the problem! In comparison, I think for people to agree to tolerate homosexuals is a noble gesture that Christian/Islamic communalists may well try emulating.
Seeing it from a political angle I think that the fundamentalists are going to be on the backfoot this time. Signals emerging from the government quarters also seem to have found some positive substance in the HC ruling.
I would be happy to see the writ of the court to prevail. At the same time I don’t know how I would react if some day I find among my near and dear ones developing homosexual tendency. Yet, I knew of a man within my circle who could not fight with the nature in stopping the female hormones developing in him. His breasts would enlarge abnormally. He was a handsome young man but lacked arousal. He used to get injections to stop breast enlargement. It was pitiable to see this person unwillingly fight against the nature.
Therefore, we must deal with the problems scientifically and emotionally first, and then look for spiritual answers if everything else fails.
In the meantime , let religionists and political parties struggle over such issues for their own benefit and existence!
Mr. Dasgupta is concerned about “in-your-face-gayness” and militant gay activism, and believes all gay activism to be defined by this “perverseness.” This concern can be addressed with two brief points. The first is that some amount of what he terms “in-your-face-gayness” is required for increasing the visibility of an otherwise invisible minority. The second is simply that not much gay activism is militant or “in-your-face” at all – a lot of this activism is happening in the courtrooms, on editorial pages such as these, and in day-to-day lives of people living their lives honestly and openly.
He further has the audacity to claim that “the invocation of equality and the principles of non-discrimination” with regards to LGBT rights might be a “double-edged sword” as the assertiveness and desire for equality by the LGBT rights movement could very well “spin out of control.” Perhaps Mr. Dasgupta, and others that hold similar beliefs as him, need to understand that equal rights are not a zero-sum game. When a particular minority group gains equal rights, it does not necessarily come at the cost of those same rights that were already afforded to the majority or to other minority groups. For instance, the legalizing of gay marriages does not undermine the validity or sanctity of heterosexual marriages, and altering school curricula to remove heteronormative assumptions does not in any way indicate, as Mr. Dasgupta appears to believe, that “man-woman relations are not the natural order of society.”
Perhaps the reason some heterosexual (or male or upper-caste or rich) people question the needs and demands of minority groups fighting for equal rights is simply because they are worried not about losing their own rights, but about losing the privilege that their status as a part of the majority with exclusive rights had guaranteed them. To use a rather politically incorrect analogy, finding that their domestic help has happened upon an inheritance that makes him richer than they are would decidedly make most people uncomfortable, because it forces them to question what they took for granted about their personal superiority that came from being wealthier, and thus, more privileged. Mr. Dasgupta’s knee-jerk reaction to LGBT communities fighting from equality might stem from a similar concern – what happens to his heterosexual privilege when those homosexuals could have the same rights as he presently does, when their relationships are recognized as valid as his, when their human dignity is considered every bit as respectable as his own?
Decriminalization of homosexual behavior may indeed serve as the starting point for further LGBT activism in the country – indeed, moving towards full equality, as part of the same “gender-neutral, non-denominational, secular, uniform civil code”, in Mr. Dasgupta’s own words, desired by the makers of our Constitution. And since it’s not a zero-sum game that we are playing, perhaps this full equality for sexual and gender minorities would only strengthen the unity of the country.
On one hand the world is fighting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and many believe that this may lead to the extinction of the human race but on the other hand we ourselves are eagre and excited to see our doom by allowing unnatural sex and legalising the same. In the last 62 years since our Independence we have been able to create a race of english speaking wild animals who want animal traits for human beings and still call themselves progressive. We won’t be surprised if some people say tommorrow that they have the right to go naked and dress can’t be imposed on them and few more will demand right to sex as a fundamental right.
This is not just ridiculous, but sickening and disgusting. I was watching Barkha Dutt’s program, where all the gays and other creeps were celebrating and Barkha as usual leading the cheer brigade. The poor Church guy who was there was laughed at by Barkha herself. So much for liberal media and Padma Shrees.
The behaviour of the media has been unbelievable. One wonders what these liberal anchors would do if their children told them they were gay. More than a high court verdict, the programs seemed like a recruitment drive for gays.
And as usual the Bollywood brigade, third-rate out-of-works like Celina Jaitley jumped into the fray to showcase themselves as friends of queers.
What next – legalisation of prostitution, opening of brothel chains, legalisation of pornography, porn theatres and channels, gay marriages. Goodbye Bharat and Hello Liberal India!
Homosexual activity was deemed a crime by law in the first place to deter people from indulging in it. Homosexual behavior has always been there in every society since ages, and has always been a taboo at least in India, there is no proof that it was socially accepted in any era. Whereas the common belief is that it is unnatural and serves no useful purpose, and common beliefs like inertia doesn’t change unless done so conspicuously and is always recorded, for e.g. people changed their beliefs on the flatness of earth only when it was conclusively proven.
Now, why do you think society will change their beliefs without seeing your postulate going through and passing all the processes?? But believe me India has always been a tolerant country and few are actually interested what goes on in somebody’s bedroom, unless he makes a song and dance about it. Remember eleventh commandment – Just don’t get caught.
The Delhi high court judgment on Section 377 is not only constitutionally correct but also necessary to annul anomalies of personal laws in India. The judgment is based on the premise that all laws which discriminate against individuals on grounds of sex and sexuality would violate constitutionally-granted fundamental rights. The judgment doesn’t say anything about the ethical or social values of homosexuality. I, therefore, wish that this case is carried to the Supreme Court where, in my opinion, the view of the Delhi high court is likely to be upheld. If this happens, not only homosexuals but also women of all communities will be protected from alleged discriminatory provisions of their personal laws. Also, those who apprehend that this judgment would trivialise the institution of marriage are misinformed.
— T.U. Mehta
Former Chief Justice (Retd) High Court of Himachal Pardesh
Article 377 may not be the only fault in the Lord Macaulay drafted Indian Penal Code. In fact a serious study needs to be carried out as to why the legal system in India is such a non starter that the authorities have failed to uphold any laws or rules whatsoever in letter and spirit, their seems to be more loopholes than the law themselves, which nevertheless are no less in numbers, may be it is humanly impossible to expect our police to uphold the sanctity of the penal code when the code itself is faulty, and all we hear as excuse is that either there are not enough policeman or are not well equipped enough. It should also be studied if redrafting the entire IPC from scratch by taking inputs from the people on ground can solve the problem to some extent at least.
But the point I want to make is that how should we go about correcting what some of us think is wrong with the laws, should it be done by the courts or the parliament? In this particular case the role of the govt was that Home ministry and Health ministry were two of the respondents to the query by the court, and the Babus of the two ministry gave contradictory reply to the court. Now, should our laws be decided by the competency/incompetency of our Babus??
They may say that homosexuality is immoral or is against the Hindu religion.
Now, this is a very interesting point. I have been looking for some “scriptural” Hindu injunction against gays, but have not been able to find any so far. Even the Manu Smriti — the (partly apocryphal) text that Marxist and Christian fundamentalists try to portray as some sort of Hindu shariat — does not breath fire against homosexuality the way Mosaic law does. In fact, evidence suggests that classical India was fairly tolerant of gays and lesbians. It definitely did not elevate same-sex love to the status of heterosexual union, but there was no condemnation of it either.
I hypothesize that Hinduism quietly accepts the fact that a minority of population is born with a homosexual orientation. This theory should not be difficult to accept for those Hindus who see in the ten avtars of Vishnu the evolution of life on Earth depicted. Surely, if our ancients were clever enough to have thought of natural selection far ahead of Darwin, they might also have thought it possible that some genetic mutations would lead to homosexuality 😉
But seriously, 377 is a relic of Christian prejudices and Christian phobias. Don’t forget that it is a British relic. Christianity considers man sinful by nature and promises salvation if Jesus (only) is accepted as savior. Yet, ironically, homosexuality is a sin that Christianity cannot come to terms with. God got pretty mad at gays and so destroyed the city of Sodom. Death is the punishment awarded to gays in Old Testament. None of this homophobia is relevant to Hinduism.
The Supreme Court has referred the appeal against 377 to the government. It will be interesting to see what the government’s response will be. But then again, there’s probably nothing suspensful here considering the facts that A) the government is virtually headed by a Roman Catholic and B) on top of it she owes her position in no small part to a Muslim vote bank.
While on the subject, why isn’t Comrade Barkha Dutt soliciting the views of renowned rights activist “Father” Cedric Prakash on the subject of 377? I’m more interested in the opinion of “rights activists” than of religious leaders.
A court in the Indian capital, Delhi, has ruled that homosexual intercourse between consenting adults is not a criminal act.
The ruling overturns a 148-year-old colonial law which describes a same-sex relationship as an “unnatural offence”.
Homosexual acts were punishable by a 10-year prison sentence.
Many people in India regard same-sex relationships as illegitimate. Rights groups have long argued that the law contravened human rights.
Delhi’s High Court ruled that the law outlawing homosexual acts was discriminatory and a “violation of fundamental rights”.
The court said that a statute in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines homosexual acts as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and made them illegal, was an “antithesis of the right to equality”….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8129836.stm
Excellent news. Does this make India more progressive than California? Or perhaps California needs a couple more years to regress on civil rights before we can say that? 😉
The movement to repeal Section 377 has been led by the Naz Foundation India Trust, an activist group, which filed apublic interest litigation in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.
In a historic judgement, on 2 Jul 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150 year old section, legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults. The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, cited the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.
The two judge bench went on to hold that:
“If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of ‘inclusiveness’. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as “deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracised. Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination. This was the ‘spirit behind the Resolution’ of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that “discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.”
Any kind of discrimination is antithesis of right to equality, said the court, while allowing plea of gay rights activists for decriminalization of homosexuality.
The court stated that the judgement would hold till Parliament chose to amend the law. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.
THUS, THE JUDGEMENT CLEARLY DEPARTS AWAY WITH THE AGE OLD CURSE ON THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND STATES THAT THE ESSENCE OF EQUALITY IS RESTORED TO ALL THE SECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE PRIMA FACIE IN ARTICLE 21 OF OUR CONSTITUTION : KUDOS TO THE JUDGEMENT
The judgement is infact a great victory in the democracy for the Right Of Equality, but one main issue in this respect that needs to be addressed is the Sexual harrassement of children.
Article 377 is basically concerned regarding any kind of intercourse that does not leads to reproduction.
As its been completely legalised, it may lead to increase in the sexual abusemnent of children.
And as such in addition with repealing Article 377, there is also a need of providing a measure against child abuse.
Strict laws have to be formulated to deal with this issue.
Section 377 IPC was enacted in 1860 by British colonial rulers in the heyday of Victorian morality. It punishes inter alia sexual intercourses between same sex persons with life imprisonment or rigorous or simple imprisonment up to 10 years. After 1967, homosexual acts between two consenting adults in private are no longer an offence in England. Homosexuality has been decriminalised in several countries of Asia, Africa and South America.
The US Supreme Court in 2003 ruled in Lawrence vs Texas that criminalisation of homosexuality between consenting adults was unconstitutional because it violated their fundamental rights of liberty and privacy. Courts in other jurisdictions namely, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Fiji and Nepal, as also the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, have invalidated laws criminalising sexual intercourse between same sex adults. Despite the above trend and the 172nd Report of our Law Commission submitted in 2000 favouring abolition of Section 377 this monstrous provision continued to remain on the statute.
Fortunately the Delhi High Court in its recent landmark judgment after a thorough and excellent analysis of the judgments of various courts and the legal and medical literature on the subject has ruled as follows: Section 377 insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults above 18 years of age in private is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 21 (personal liberty) and Articles 14 and 15 (non-discrimination).
The High Court has not struck down Section 377. It has expressly stated that Section 377 will continue to govern non-consensual sex involving minors.
In essence homosexuality has not been legalised, much less advocated or championed. It has been decriminalised with the salutary consequence that the police will not be able to barge into a person’s bedroom and terrorise him or her with arrest and criminal prosecution with all the attendant trauma and stigma unless the extortionate demands of the police are met. It is well known that Section 377 had become an instrument for harassment and blackmail.
The judgment rightly removes the stigma that a gay person is a criminal or an immoral person. If some adults because of their sexual orientation are impelled to express and fulfill their affection with same sex persons in the privacy of their bedrooms without causing any offence or harm to anybody—except self appointed guardians of morality—surely they cannot be treated as criminals, their personal liberty violated nor can they be discriminated against for their alleged ‘unnatural’ acts. Pray, who has the authority to define what is unnatural or against the order of nature? If one subscribes to the regressive notion that the sole aim of sexual intercourse must be for procreation, then an absurd consequence will be that oral sex between husband and wife would be punishable under Section 377. Incidentally oral sex is vividly portrayed in Khajuraho temples.
The legal merits of the judgment may be debated. However, to attack the judgment as an assault on the culture and fabric of Indian society betrays a narrow and sick mentality. And for Heaven’s sake do not bring religion into the matter. What may be regarded as sinful by some religious leaders, is not necessarily a crime. For example, contraception is prohibited by certain religions and considered sinful. But it is a far cry to proscribe that activity as a punishable crime.
The Delhi High Court judgment has liberated persons in the judiciary, and in the fields of law, literature, science and other disciplines from the stigma of criminality and immorality solely because of their sexual orientation. The real merit of the judgment lies in its recognition that intimacies, privacies and autonomies of human life and the right of an individual to make choices, which does not harm or infringe the rights of other persons, cannot be criminalised. The judgment gives effect to the value of inclusiveness and highlights a vital fact that where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, all persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination. It is hoped that this progressive and enlightened judgment is accepted by the State.
Imagine you are getting probational training for after clearing UPSC. Unfortunately they couldn’t provide separate rooms to all. Now you have to share a room with 2 persons and Gay (which you don’t know).
At night they feel some sensation and rest you can think over.
See this is applicable to all organizations ( even private).
A person from private organization doesn’t know much about legal procedures. In fact, he tries to avoid legal procedures through corruption or some other way. I have seen some eunuchs forcing the person to become like them.
Amendment of section 377 says that they are decriminalized regarding what they do in the bedroom. But i want to ask Delhi High Court if they are going to do in the bedroom and with mutual consent than who’s going to punish them. No one cares what they do in the bedroom. See this black mailing and harassment are all rubbish arguments. All who are harassed under section 377 are not necessarily Homosexual. And those who are harassing can find other ways. If harassment is there than bring reforms to that side.
Every law has pros and cons but i think Delhi HC has seen only one side.
Some persons argue that India has been 127 country to amend the law. But India has remained different country since independence. When India decided not to align with any other countries even then India was different country. But NAM summits has done commendable job during Cold war .
The criminalization of homosexuality in India dates back to 1860, when the country was still under British rule. The statute, officially Indian Penal Code Chapter XVI, Section 377, punished “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” Violations are punishable by a prison term up to 10 years and possible fines.
On July 2, 2009, the New Delhi High Court, under Justice S. Muralidhar, repealed Section 377, decriminalizing consensual sex between LGBT adults.
In June of 2008, three Indian cities, Bangaluru, Calcutta and New Delhi, held their first LGBT pride marches just days before the Naz Foundation India Trust, an activist group, presented arguments before the New Delhi High Court to repeal Section 377. The repeal of Section 377 came just days after the second pride marches in Delhi, and Bangalore.
Gay advocacy groups argued that Section 377 had been used by Indian police to discriminate against and blackmail India’s LGBT citizens. “In India, gays and lesbians still live highly closeted lives,” Vikram Doctor, a member of the Queer Media Collective, told The Washington Post. “There is still violence. There are still many desperate suicides by gay couples. There is still harassment. And there is still intense pressure to marry those they do not want to be with. But today we have a voice.”
It is unclear what affect the reversal of Section 377 will have on India’s transgender population. Times of India writes, “Even if the HC [New Delhi High Court] rules in favour of transgenders [known as hijras or eunuchs] and declares Section 377 of IPC unconstitutional, it would mean little if corresponding legal rights were not conferred on them through amendments to the Constitution, as well as personal laws, that require moving of appropriate bills in Parliament by the political class.”
New Delhi (PTI) Amid a raging debate over amendment to section 377, which criminalises homosexuality, the Union Health Ministry on Monday said there was a need for a”Parliamentary debate” and a “broad consensus” on the issue.
“I can simply say that there should be more debate– public debate, Parliament debate. There has to be consensus.
The negative and positive has to be evaluated and then a conclusion should be evolved,” Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said at a press conference here.
Asserting that there could not be a better forum than Parliament to debate the issue, he said, “…there should be a total consensus. Not only Government, but other political parties should also be in line with it (amendment)”.
“If you are going to be bringing in a legislation of this nature, there has to be a broad consensus,” he asserted.
Elaborating on the issue, Mr. Azad said, while certain issues were related to the country’s culture, others pertained to diseases associated with homosexuality. “There should be a general debate where out heritage as well as diseases are considered”.
People should become apprised of all the negatives and positives of the matter before forming their opinion, he added.
Earlier, Law Minister Veerappa Moily said in Hyderabad that the government will not take a decision in a hurry to repeal the controversial Section 377 of the IPC.
Concerns have been voiced by some Christian and Muslim religious groups against the step.
As India held only its second national Gay Pride march yesterday, officials said that the country was planning to repeal a law against homosexuality that was introduced by the British almost 150 years ago.
India is one of the few professed liberal democracies in the world that still has such a law. The others are mostly Islamic or authoritarian, and even China lifted its ban in 1997.
Successive governments have long argued that Indian society is too conservative to accept repealing Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code — under which sex “against nature” is punishable by up to ten years in prison. India’s leaders have come under increasing pressure in recent years from activists who say that the law, introduced in 1860, violates civil liberties and encourages the spread of HIV by forcing homosexuals underground.
The new Government that took power in May after the Congress Party’s surprise election victory has indicated that it is ready to change the law, which is at present being challenged in the Delhi High Court, according to Indian media reports.
P. Chidambaram, the Home Minister, has told officials that he supports repealing the law and is due to hold a meeting to discuss the issue soon with the two other ministers whose consent is required — those with the portfolios of Law and Health.
Veerappa Moily, the Law Minister, has already said that he favours a “review” of the law, and the Health Ministry, now under Ghulam Nabi Azad, has been calling for its repeal for several years.
Mr Chidambaram’s predecessor, Shivraj Patil, was considered one of the main obstacles in the last government to repealing the law — which brackets homosexuality with bestiality and paedophilia. He and other conservatives in the Cabinet and Parliament argued that homosexuality was “un-Indian” and that repealing Section 377 would encourage delinquent behaviour, even though it has been rarely enforced in the past decade.
“Public opinion and the current societal context in India does not favour the deletion of the said offence from the statute book,” the Home Ministry said in response to a challenge to the law in 2005.
Others argued that it was the only law that could be applied in cases of homosexual child abuse and male rape.
Activists claim that the law violates the Indian Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to equality and personal liberty, as well as the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
They also say that it leads to police harassment and encourages the spread of HIV-Aids, which affects about 2.5 million people in India, by making it hard for infected gay men to seek treatment. In 2001 a local non-governmental organisation, the Naz Foundation, challenged the law’s constitutionality in the Delhi High Court, arguing that it should no longer apply to consenting adults. A ruling is expected next month.
The Naz Foundation mounted the challenge after police in the northern city of Lucknow raided its offices and those of another NGO and detained four staff members for 47 days on suspicion of running a gay “sex racket”.
The police said that HIV-Aids related information seized was obscene and charged four staff under Section 377. The charges were dropped.
Sex acts
— Being gay is punishable by death in Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen
— Britain’s Sexual Offences Act (1967) permitted gay sex in private for consenting adults
— The US bans gay sex among serving soldiers
The LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) community in India may still be euphoric on the new decriminalization of homosexuality and the revoking of article 377, but their joy may be short lived. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which so far held homosexual acts as illegal was seen against the liberal spirit of the Indian people. The High Court Ruling text can be viewed here. However, the concept of personal freedom still does not appeal to some religious sentiments such as those held byBaba Ramdev. He has decided to petition the Supreme Court to go against the High Court Ruling
In his petition, the yoga guru has maintained that homosexual activities we-re not only against public morality, public health and a healthy environment but were also against the interests of society. Baba Ramdev has further quoted a Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas who had said that homosexuality was a curable disease. He has expressed apprehension in his petition that if high court’s decision on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was allowed to stay, it would expose a large chunk of population to HIV/AIDS. He said “The high court erred in striking down the provisions of Section 377 of IPC insofar as it penalizes consensual unnatural sex act of adults in private by proceeding on the basis of changing moral values and norms,and ignoring the fundamental constitutional principles of judicial restraint”
Hopefully, the freedom given to the LGBT community will remain for some time. We, at alwaysindian believe it’s a matter of personal choice. What about you?
he Delhi High Court on Thursday announced their verdict on gay sex and legalized it stating that the law holding it a criminal offense till date deprives individuals of their fundamental rights. However, they declared that under section 377 of IPC (Indian Penal Code) which criminalizes consensual sexual acts in private continues to be violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution for minors.
‘The provision of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile, non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors’, as said by the High Court. The court further clarified that by adults they mean everyone who is 18 years of age or above. This judgment will be followed till the Parliament decides to amend the law.
However certain religious leaders strongly opposed this judgment which legalized gay sex among consenting adults. They called it ‘absolutely wrong’ to legalize homosexuality. For instance, Jama Masjid’s, Imam Ahmed Bukhari opposed the government’s attempt to scrap the Section 377. All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahli stated homosexuality is not allowed by any religion. While Fr. Dominic Immanuel said those churches have no objection to decriminalization of homosexuality but it should not be legalized.
Although the law approves their plea, will the religious giants accept this judgment in the Indian society? The culture definitely does not support all the universal rights, but science remains common for all. If experts have given their verdict on homosexuality long back, why aren’t they being accepted the way they’d like to live?
If Dharma is ambiguous on this topic, how can one say it supports/opposes it? As already said, for your benefit, i’ll repeat again, it is the preservation of family which is my prime concern. Now lets move out from this circle of “he said, she said” and get on to the topic. To snuff out poor reading/comprehension skills, on your part, i’ll try to be concise.
One, you’ve acknowledged that you are selectively discriminating. Nothing wrong in that, others (including me) are like that too. It clearly showed up when asked about carnal/bestial behaviour, sexual relation between MAN-animal. Your beating around the bush and an inability to give a straight answer was quite telling. With that, you have forsaken the right to talk of equality since you are discriminating just like others. In other words, don’t take the moral high ground by sneaking in equality, humanity etc. You are no better/worse than others. Bias has one very special peculiarity: it expresses itself in surprising and unknowing ways. I understand there is a good reason you are not forthright with your answer to my question because there is a small chance that you find bestiality disgusting and if you write that, you have no leg to stand on and talk about gays, lesbians, humanity, rights. What do i get as an answer, carnal-ists should request me in written or verbal. This might be a good enough for class 3 kids but surely not the correct (or logical) way to duck a question. You have strong feelings for gays and lesbians but don’t try to paint it as “fight for the welfare of humanity” or “rights for sexual minorities”. Nice try but your logic is misleading.
Lastly, when you say About the law i believe its about “humanity”, apart from what is written above, do not forget that bestial(MAN-animal) behaviour is shown by human beings and so is incest, sexual intercourse between closely related persons (brother-sister, father-daughter), should we make these acts legal (incest is legal in france, sweden etc) on the basis of “humanity” and “they too are a part of society” caterwaul?
On 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court court ruling decriminalised homosexual intercourse between consenting adults was and adjudicated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be conflicting with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.Morden people support this act and having lots of reason behind it but still they have queerphobia and dont want to like himself to be called as a Gay or Lesbian …Most of the debate on the media watever it is ,talked about homosexuality I am fully against with this law and believe that these relationship only will ruin indian culture.Now, someone is coming with the question that why prostitution should not be allowed even it also cleared all the constraints which were in the
homosexuality.Even people asking that they love their pet and cant live without him then why dont they do sex with him ….
Ok I am not going to be biased ….I got some information.Lets talk about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender),What a technical word …looking that they are working on latest technology …..anyways,In India people hear this word when Meera Nair came with her movie”Fire”.some of the states banned that movie
So,I didnt get the chance to see at that time.but,i was there in Banaras when it was shoot.After that Girlfirend” came …superflop !!!
I have some example which are given by those LGBT ppl about hinduism to support their concept
1. Ardhanarisvara-LGBT say this means half male half female – But , It is interpret as “advait” priciple which tells that He alone is the cause of the entire existence “shiva” and “shakti”.Rigveda acclaims, ‘He, who is described as male, is as much the female and the penetrating eye does not fail to see it’. The Rigvedic assertion is explicitly defined. The male is only so much male as much he is female and vice versa the female is only as much female as much she is male. The maleness and femaleness are the attributes contained in one frame.
2.Following three examples are related to Vishnu Avatar “Mohini” .this was not the transaction but it is a seperate Avatar Mohini.So,no need to clarify
a. Aravan (a hero whom Krishna married after becoming a woman);
b. Ayyappa (a god born from the union of Shiva and Mohini, a female incarnation of Vishnu);
c.Harihara (Shiva and Vishnu combined);
3. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (an incarnation of Radha and Krishna combined) -> for this I can suggest LGBT to go and read “Chaitanya Charitamrita”.for brief Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was an avatar of Krishna in the mood of Radharani.
4. Gadadhara (an incarnation of Radha in male form)-> was also an associate of
So,before pointing to Hindu narrative tradition,people must have to go through to the facts and then express themselves.Even in hindu law code “Manu Smriti” there are many punishments for certain instances of male and female homosexuality.If a stri [adult woman] was found having sexual relations with a kanya [unmarried girl], for instance, her “head should be shaved immediately or two of her fingers should be cut off, and she should be made to ride on a donkey.” If two kanya have sex, each “must be fined two hundred (panas), pay the double of her (nuptial) fee, and receive ten (lashes with a) rod.
The Narada Smriti,forbids the marriage of homosexual men (mukhebhaga – men who perform oral sex on other men) to women: “These four [irsyaka, sevyaka, vataretas, and mukhebhaga] are to be completely rejected as unqualified for marriage, even for a woman who has been raped.”
So,Do whatever you want ,but dont relate Hinduism with your act……. Be happy LGBT, I can only pray for you
The Section 377 of Constitution has been amended. Homosexuality has been legalized. This means a lot to LBGT community. The people ‘who defied the conventional bonds’ have now been giving equality in the eyes of law. An epic judgment, truly.
An epic judgment that when a ’modern’ fast forward country like USA’s 6 states have legalized same-sex marriage but a country like India has opened its arms to homosexuality between consenting adults.
A country so narrow minded in places that some people could be living in the ancient ages even now.
A country where it’s legal for a girl over 18 to marry a guy and is supposedly protected by law as they’re of legal age. Yet newly-weds are burnt, tortured and beaten to death when going ‘against the society’.
A country where brides are still set on fire for dowry.
A country where sex before marriage is still a taboo and virginity is not a gift but a duty that a woman is expected to uphold for the man she gets married to.
A country where “dating” is not really accepted by families. People have to hide their love.
A lot of well educated people are opposed to the above ideas too. It’s so prevalent. Everyday a new paper has a tiny bit of news stating that in some part of the country, a man and woman were punished for they defied the society.
What does legalization of homosexuality mean in a country that cannot for a larger part, handle freedom like freedom? A place where injustice still prevails and bribery is not the problem but the solution to all the problems…?
If you say all this burning and torturing happens in the village, then for sure this new amendment of law applies to the villages too. After all they’re a part of India.
Come to the city, interracial couples are frowned upon, “Aunties” and “Uncles” still look at young couples dating and disapprove.
Teenage pregnancy is a fact, not many people are ready to accept.
Indian society can be so incapable of handling freedom.
Let’s compare legalization of homosexuality to legalization of marijuana.
The people who smoke marijuana secretly will do it openly, if it is legalized. The peddlers, who sold the intoxicating drug illegally, will set up shops.
And those people, who had no idea about the popularity of the drug or those who never tried it, will now try it too.
Would legalization of homosexuality mean the same thing?
How many of us repulse the idea that 25 years later, our sons might bring home a boyfriend to introduce to us? How many hiss at the idea?
How many of us are actually shocked and horrified at the amendment of the act? Is this modernization…?
On Thursday, in a historic judgment, the Delhi High Court went ahead and struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalizing homosexuality. This judgment is particularly surprising, given the revisionist thinking that followed the groundbreaking nature of some of such controversial pronouncements.
After Islamic and Christian groups expressed loud reservations, the law minister had to famously renege on his own casually offered pledge to amend Article 377, the law authored during Lord Macaulay’s time that makes “unnatural sex” a punishable offence. It was hardly, if ever, used punitively on consensual homosexual activity, but gay rights activists have long wanted the “criminal” tag to go.
ne wonders which parts of the proposed changes were ‘relevant’, and which were ‘compassionate’. Section 377A of the Penal Code will not be amended. The Section, which outlaws sex acts between males, will continue to discriminate against gay men. This is not the first time that the NCCS has spoken out against homosexuality. In 2003, the NCCS implored the government to preserve the status quo against homosexuality. This time, however, the NCCS has lashed out against lesbians, advocating that acts of lesbianism should also be outlawed:
“We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.”
“Well, at least they’re advocating gender equality,” jokes Susan Tang wryly. Tang is a council member of the Free Community Church (FCC), the only church in Singapore to welcome LGBT people just as they are.
“To be honest, I found their language abhorrent,” she continues, ironically echoing the NCCS’s use of the word “abhorrent”. “I don’t think they thought carefully about the impact of their words. It’s an aggressive stand to take.” The NCCS’s statement strikes Tang as mildly hypocritical: “Their message is one of love and acceptance, humility and kindness. But the statement is the exact opposite.”
According to Tang, the FCC will be organising a public forum on the Christian perspectives on homosexuality. “More dialogue is needed, not less,” she explains. The aim of the forum is to “foster an open, honest conversation” instead of merely “rehashing the old theological arguments.”
What is worrying is that Singapore’s Christian landscape is becoming like that of America’s: dominated by fundamentalist hotheads of the James Dobson variety, who focus all their energies on private morality, which inevitably equates to sexual morality. Since other hot issues to do with sexual morality (notably abortion) will not be contested, it stands to reason that the NCCS is zeroing in on the theme of homosexuality. Although one seriously doubts the possibility of the Singapore government kowtowing to any single religious group – Singapore is, after all, a multi-religious society – the NCCS’s public condemnation of homosexuality perturbs because it could blaze a trail for other religious denominations to join in the denunciation.
What does the NCCS stand to gain if all acts of homosexuality were to be outlawed? This is the question that leaves many commentators stumped. The sphere of private morality should be left to the individual. Public incursions into personal morality have failed spectacularly: the prohibition of alcohol in the United States, for example, was repealed, but not before causing numerous social problems. In Singapore today, 377A has failed as a moral indicator. It remains merely as a symbol, a colonial hangover. It is hard to enforce, due to obvious reasons. And few, if any, heed the law as a moral example.
In modern society, each and every individual should have the right to do whatever he or she wants to do, as long as there is no incursion on another individual’s right to the same. It is hard to see how two gay men sixty-nining in private could have any perceptible effect on anyone’s ability to believe in the Christian God. The NCCS’s discordantly worded statement marks a sharp break from the less truculent stances it has adopted in the past. Don’t be surprised if more gay Christian men and women, frustrated with the church’s broad anti-gay sweeps, vote with their feet and stop going to church altogether.
Why not bring the Gun Laws of USA in India if you bring the sex laws? Many writers/authors/scholars who have commented on equality of sexes and have shown sympathy on the sexually weak gay and lesbians. To start with basically men and women are equal, bit by functions and mentality there are very many differences. The whole argument boils down to yielding to empty modernity and blind imitation of the Western culture. (1) Every day we read in the news about kidnapping, robbery, burglary, rape etc in cities. There are millions of people who hold jewellery and cash exceeding 5 lacs, why not follow the American law and allow people who want to defend themselves to buy, hold and carry guns? This may reduce the crimes. Or Will it increase? Same thing with loosening laws on sexual behavior
Why not allow wife swapping as they do in the West? (2) India has followed the law in the West that is allowing free sexual intercourse between consenting adults. Result, 45% of the children in the West are born outside the Wedlock. Soon we will catch up with the West. Let us follow the Western Culture. (3) Some husbands and wives get fed up with having sex between the same partners. Why not allow changing partners, in the West they call it wife swapping as young friends swap vehicles. Now we call it adultery. Why not we follow the American culture of Wife Swapping Clubs and bring a law to legalise it? Why not we pass a law legalising adultery if some husbands and wives like adventurous, indiscriminate dogs like sex life? Man thinks is he wiser than God Almighty and too proud to admit his weaknesses.
Why not allow a 15 year old girl to have sex with consent? Why fix age? (4) Who says that a 15 year old girl does not have knowledge about sexual intercourse? Since she knew all about it having read about it seen on the millions of pornographic sites on the internet, why not we in India change the law allowing a 15 year old girl to have premarital sex relation with other married men or unmarried men if there is consent and consensus? (5) Will the law on legalising same sex relation, also allow heterosexual relation? Many writers think they are extraordinarily intelligent and great philosophers and hence logically argue against God given law are non-sense.. This is simple stupidity and arrogance on the part of man. Some men stupidly think that they are wiser than our sages and prophets and they can challenge God Almighty. THINK FOR A WHILE WHERE WILL ALL THESE LEAD TO AND WHERE WILL IT END. HUMANITY WILL DESTROY ITSELF DUE TO ITS OWN HEAD WEIGHT
Because of article 21 being invoked it will be difficult for other states to uphold 377, hence the change has a countrywide implication.The problems will come when lawyers and judges play games with the letter of the law and continue to uphold 377 outside Delhi. So it becomes very important to extend the amendment to all states of the Indian union (actually sit and change the wording of IPC to be explicit so that reference to a specific judgement each time is not needed).
I think that’s the most pressing need now.