The verdict came as a major relief to the covert and overt homosexuals in the country, who have been stigmatised by society and persecuted by the draconian law introduced during British Rule.
It was also hailed across the world by political leaders and human rights organisations as a right move in the direction of inclusive policy empowering minorities of all hues.
However, the revolutionary ruling was too much for religious leaders to stomach and they soon moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision.
The apex court sought the stand of the Central government on decriminalising homosexuality — and that is where the drama unfolds. Ever since the SC directive to seek its opinion, the Centre has been shuttling the issue from ministry to ministry, and has been delaying the decision. Opinions on the issue differ between ministries and there has not been a consensus yet.
At a hearing on February 28, 2012, addition solicitor-general PP Malhotra, who appeared for the Home ministry said, "Gay sex is highly immoral and against social order and there is a high chance of spreading of diseases (like AIDS) through such acts."
As civil society breathed fire over his ‘inputs’, the government distance itself from the controversial remarks — the apex court came down heavily on the flip-flop. Even a month after that, the Centre was not able to come out with a clear stand, and this angered the Supreme Court.
In a scathing observation, the SC on Tuesday rapped the Centre for its ‘casual approach’.
All across the world, countries are decriminalising homosexuality and giving legal recognition to same-sex unions. Such moves will ensure that they are not discriminated against and can enjoy their rights like any other person.
Homosexuality is a reality that cannot be wished away, whether the self-appointed guardians of social moral fabric like it or not. If an adult can make a choice to follow a religion, elect political representatives and take decisions on numerous life-altering choices, he/she can decide on what their sexual orientation should be. What’s the point in calling yourself a democracy when all voices aren’t allowed to be heard?
Nothing unnatural about it
Canadian biologist Bruce Bagemihl who has authored Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity has documented evidence of homosexual behaviour among at least 1,500 species of animals. Therefore the argument that homosexuality is ‘against the order of nature’ or ‘unnatural’ doesn’t hold ground. While we are still stuck in a time warp trying to call homosexuality unnatural and immoral, other countries have move far ahead — using scientific logic rather than emotion. In a 2003 landmark judgment, the US Supreme Court cited documented evidence of homosexuality among animals to strike down sodomy laws of Texas and 13 other states in Lawrence vs Texas.
Sculptures and Khajuraho, which date back to 9th Century BC, vividly display several representations of homosexual intercourse among both men and women.
Salient features of Delhi HC verdict on Section 377
Criminalisation of consensual gay sex violates rights to dignity and privacy, which falls within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 377 runs contrary to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, because it creates an unreasonable classification and targets homosexuals as a class. Public hostility or contempt for a particular social group is not a valid ground for discrimination by State. Discrimination based on sex, prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The right to life under Article 21 of Constitution includes the right to health, and Section 377 of IPC is an impediment to public health because it hinders HIV-prevention efforts. Section 377 is unconstitutional to the extent where it criminalises consensual sex between adults in private. None of the above exemptions apply to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.
(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 21, 2012)
4 comments:
Am a bit confused by your research.. Homosexual among Humans is not natural at all.. there may be 1,500 species who are homosexual in nature but the point you miss is that the nature has given them the ability to reproduce by this kind of mating, whereas in Humans,homosexuality wont ever result in reproduction, that itself justifies the fact that Homosexual among humans are unnatural
And we shouldn't forget that Humans are made superior over all the animals on earth. They have given authority over all the living organisms.Ders no justification in saying that animals are homosexual so its natures way of telling us to be homosexuals. Animals eat their own shit, they roam around without clothes, they mate in open, they live without shelter, they live without discipline & morality so now Humans too should start doing the same. I dont find any logic in that, brother
Freedom is not the right, to do things as we please but it is the opportunity to do the right thing. Immoral, unnatural & unlawful things needs to be curtailed. And one among them, who is really happy by the SC verdict.
1. Sex between consenting adults is never illegal. It is not something that needs to be recognised or granted or approved by any entity — be it courts, governments or societies. The ‘right’ is not absolute as there are millions who follow a different way of life. “I am the only way” is very much an Abrahamic approach and other cultures follow a much more benevolent, inclusive, tolerant and liberal approach to ‘deviations’.
2. It’s not my research. It’s the work of Bruce Bagemihl, a Canadian biologist.
3. Sex is not for reproduction alone. So to go down that road would be to say that our species should confine sex just for reproduction alone. To keep it natural...
4. It is our assumption that humans are superior species. So it would be purely one-sided to assume that our way of life is the best. Microbes to mammals, we are vastly outnumbered. So, if we take sheer numbers, we and our way of life would look ‘unnatural’ to them.
5. For all our claim of being ‘chosen’ to rule and possessing supreme intellect doesn’t hold water as we are the only species that is destroying the planet. And... the ‘authority’ you mention is based on man-made literature that has no proof.
6. We kill each other for unlimited number of reasons... so much for our discipline and morality. We don’t find animals massacring each other, do we? So I wouldn’t tom-tom our kind as the species worth emulating.
Post a Comment