Homosexuality an offence, says Supreme Court IANS

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

In a jolt to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders, the Supreme Court Wednesday held that consensual sex between adults of the same gender is an offence. Setting aside the Delhi High Court verdict of 2009, the apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhayay said that there was no constitutional room for change in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.


Section 377 of IPC holds that sexual relationship against the order of the nature is an offence. The Delhi High Court by its, now set aside, verdict had decriminalised the sexual relationship between adults of the same gender under Section 377. Restoring back Section 377 under the statute book, the court referring to the Attorney General said that government could, if it so desired, amend the law. The apex court verdict upholding Section 377 came 21 months after it had reserved its verdict in March 2012.

 

[P.J.]

NEW DELHI: Gay rights activists were up in arms on Wednesday against the Supreme Court verdict that upheld a law criminalizing homosexuality, calling it a "black day' for the LGBT community and vowed to carry on the fight to restore their rights including seeking its review.

As members of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community expressed shock and disappointment at the verdict, additional solicitor general of Indira Jaisingh threw her weight behind them, saying the court position is an imposition of "medieval mindset" on the people of the country.

She questioned the "double standards" of the apex court in dealing with human rights issues after it quashed a 2009 Delhi high court verdict and made gay sex illegal and a punishable offence again under Section 377 IPC.

She raised question as to why the court put the ball in the court of legislature to decide on the issue when so many other matters and policies are being reviewed by it.

"Historical opportunity to expand constitutional values has been lost," Jaising said, adding, "It is surprising that the court, which does judicial review on many issues, has put the ball in the court of Parliament to decide on homosexuality."

"What surprises me is the double standards here. When it is a question of human rights, why send it to the Parliament when the Supreme Court is itself the observer of the human rights," she commented after the verdict.

Anjali Gopalan, founder of a NGO Naz Foundation that was the first to file the petition for decriminalizing section 377, said she was "shocked" by the ruling.

"This is taking many, many steps back. The Supreme Court has not just let down the LGBT community but the Constitution of India."

"The verdict was totally unexpected from the top court. It is a black day for the community," Arvind Narayan, a lawyer of the Alternative Law Forum gay rights group, told reporters.

Gay rights activists who were inside the courtroom were visibly upset while some outside broke down and hugged each other in consolation.

Advocate Anand Grover, who had argued the case, said Naz Foundation would file a petition for a review of the top court's decision.

Government on its part said it will have to abide by the verdict.

"We have to abide by the decision," home minister Sushilkumar Shinde said.

"The opinion of the Supreme Court has to be respected by the government," law and justice minister Kapil Sibal said.

The judgment was, however, welcomed by Amod Kanth, general secretary of Prayas, who was one of the petitioners against the Delhi high court verdict.

Gay sex: Activists shocked with SC verdict, call it a 'black day' - The Times of India

 

[sangom]

The world thinks that all these "kinky" preferences are sacred and must be worshipped. I firmly believe that only heterosexual sex should be legal. I support the SC judgment.

Note: I am not "imposing" my opinion/view but merely expressing it.

 

[Nara]

The world thinks that all these "kinky" preferences are sacred and must be worshipped. I firmly believe that only heterosexual sex should be legal. I support the SC judgment.

How about non-procreative recreational sex, would you want that to be illegal too? How about "kinky" heterosexual sex, like bondage, etc.?

If not, what is the problem? Letting consenting adults have sex the way they want is not "worshiping" their sexual act, it is just respecting their right to engage in the kind of sex they prefer.

Have these justices visited Khajuraho? These guys represent an anachronistic British Victorian British era mindset. Hope the parliament fixes this, or else, Indians will be a laughing stock among liberal democratic societies.

Note: I am not "imposing" my opinion/view but merely expressing it.

touche

 

[P.J.]

Homosexuality should be seen in the context of changing society as many things which were earlier unacceptable have become acceptable with passage of time, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday.

A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya, which is hearing a bunch of appeals filed against decriminalisation of gay sex, said that these things should be seen in the light of changing times where phenomena of live-in relationship, single parents and artificial fertilisation have become normal.

"Recent phenomena of live-in relationship, single parents, surrogacy. There is a case where a man is unmarried but wants to be a father and engage a surrogate mother. Thirty-forty years ago it was against the order of nature but now artificial fertilisation is a thriving business," the bench said.

It also pointed out that many things, which were considered immoral twenty years back, have become acceptable to society now.

"The society is changing," the bench said adding that gay sex was not an offence prior to 1860 and referred to paintings and sculptures of Khajuraho..


Senior Advocate Amrendra Sharan, who is opposing the Delhi High Court's verdict of decriminalising gay sex on behalf of the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Right, submitted that social issues cannot be decided on the basis of sculptures.

The bench, however, observed that it is a reflection of society of that time and homosexuality should not be seen only in terms of sexual intercourse.

Homosexuality is to be seen in context of changing society: Supreme Court | NDTV.com

 

[renuka]

Homosexuality is nothing new..its not a new trend or anything kinky.

In fact I am starting to wonder if Ashrams of the past had any homosexual encounters cos many Gurus were strongly Anti Female and some did not really have sex with their wifes as often which lead to the incidents of Shisyas violating the bed of the Guru..I wonder???


BTW any sort of sexual relationship whether its homosexual or heterosexual is just grouped under Kama and I see no problem in that.

The problem is people tend to think that heterosexual relationships of the married kind are sacred.

Technically the hormones released during any act of mutual sexual gratification is the same whether its homosexual,heterosexual..married or unmarried kind..and its the same Pubococcygeus muscle that contracts in a pulsatile manner...its not as if a different set of hormones are released for homosexuals and a different group of muscles contract.

So basically what a person does behind closed doors with mutual consent is none of my business!

 

[mkrishna100]

Hope the parliament fixes this, or else, Indians will be a laughing stock among liberal democratic societies.

I do not think Parliament will take a bold stand on this and fearing loss of votes ( due to religious consideration ) many parties may play safe in this issue . In this one issue fanatic Hindu/Muslim /Christian/Sikh groups will come together opposing all others .

 

[Nara]

.... In this one issue fanatic Hindu/Muslim /Christian/Sikh groups will come together opposing all others .

So true mkrishna100, these religious types have more in common among themselves than their animosity with each other betrays. Religion demands conformity and extracts a heavy price from those who are unable to comply -- so much for the compassion, so much for the morality of these justices supreme. The outrage is already pouring out, let the truly moral people stand up for the basic fundamental rights of the decent people to be left alone. Why does it matter which cavity somebody else prefers, grow up, get over it, nobody is taking away the cavity these justices prefer.

Indian LGBT activists outraged as supreme court reinstates gay sex ban | World news | theguardian.com

 

[krish44]

Homosexuality is nothing new..its not a new trend or anything kinky.

In fact I am starting to wonder if Ashrams of the past had any homosexual encounters cos many Gurus were strongly Anti Female and some did not really have sex with their wifes as often which lead to the incidents of Shisyas violating the bed of the Guru..I wonder???


BTW any sort of sexual relationship whether its homosexual or heterosexual is just grouped under Kama and I see no problem in that.

The problem is people tend to think that heterosexual relationships of the married kind are sacred.

Technically the hormones released during any act of mutual sexual gratification is the same whether its homosexual,heterosexual..married or unmarried kind..and its the same Pubococcygeus muscle that contracts in a pulsatile manner...its not as if a different set of hormones are released for homosexuals and a different group of muscles contract.

So basically what a person does behind closed doors with mutual consent is none of my business!

I like yr medical reasoning relating to homo-hetero sexual relationships. I am reminded of film actor nana patekar saying in a film hindu and muslim blood being similar while advocating harmony . your comments on gurus and ashrams are likely to upset our brahmin friends. western concepts of privacy and liberal sexual relationship between consenting adults of same gender. in privacy may not find much favour. however I strongly believe supreme cousrt has let down india as far as human rights are concerned by its stand on ART377and women intern case involving judge of supreme court

 

[krish44]

I do not think Parliament will take a bold stand on this and fearing loss of votes ( due to religious consideration ) many parties may play safe in this issue . In this one issue fanatic Hindu/Muslim /Christian/Sikh groups will come together opposing all others .

our law minister says it is his prerogative to make a new law and if parliament functions he might consider it

 

[vgane]

Homosexuality is nothing new..its not a new trend or anything kinky.

In fact I am starting to wonder if Ashrams of the past had any homosexual encounters cos many Gurus were strongly Anti Female and some did not really have sex with their wifes as often which lead to the incidents of Shisyas violating the bed of the Guru..I wonder???

BTW any sort of sexual relationship whether its homosexual or heterosexual is just grouped under Kama and I see no problem in that.

The problem is people tend to think that heterosexual relationships of the married kind are sacred.

Technically the hormones released during any act of mutual sexual gratification is the same whether its homosexual,heterosexual..married or unmarried kind..and its the same Pubococcygeus muscle that contracts in a pulsatile manner...its not as if a different set of hormones are released for homosexuals and a different group of muscles contract.

So basically what a person does behind closed doors with mutual consent is none of my business!

In fact our Hindu texts do talk about unnatural sex...In arthasastra it is called ayoni..There were penalties for that, but minor compared to adultery and rape

 

[sarang]

I think the issue is more technical - whether declaring the act as a crime conflicts with the fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution; the judgement is, it is not. If section 377 is deleted, it is not an offence. As most of the elected representatives will not vote for repealing the section, it stands. The SC has said that section 377 is not unconstitutional.

Pope is also against gay marriage and he is the times man of the year.

 

[vgane]

A Vedic link to this topic

The Supreme Court?s Manu Smriti | Devdutt

 

[sarang]

The present government (for that matter any) will do nothing. They expect the supreme court to bail them out, but it failed miserably.

From DNA:

Union law minister Kapil Sibal asserted the government’s intention to take up Section 377 (to de-criminalize homosexuality) if Parliament is allowed to run but the fact is that the Congress-led UPA government does not have nerve to take up such controversial issue when there is a surge of tide against it.

“It’s the Supreme Court’s prerogative under the Constitution to test the constitutionality of a law. They are exercising their prerogative. We have the prerogative to make laws. We shall exercise our prerogative. The opinion of the Supreme Court must be respected by the government and legislature is the final arbiter of what the law should be. I won’t extend my comment beyond that,” said Sibal.

Sibal’s remarks came in response to the Supreme Court view holding decriminalizing homosexuality as constitutionally invalid.

Setting aside the 2009 Delhi high court judgment, the Supreme Court said that this (de-criminalizing homosexuality) is not a matter for the courts to decide, thus putting the onus on the Central government to pass a legislation to amend article 377 in Parliament.

Member of the Group of Ministers (GoM) to take a view on Article 377, Sibal along with the then union home minister P Chidambaram in 2009 had given recommendation to decriminalise homosexuality.

The recommendation later reflected in the affidavit filed by the union home secretary RK Singh in the Supreme Court last year.

However, government sources said though Sibal and many other ministers still hold the same view and under normal circumstances might have taken it up, the government would not risk raking up the controversial issue of decriminalizing gay sex for the fear of stiff resistance by many political parties in parliament.

Moreover, there is no consensus within the Congress, party sources said, as it is aware that a step in favour of gay rights can increase its unpopularity as most of India, especially religious groups cutting across various religions, are totally against it and see it as a sin.

There is also no denying the fact that gays and lesbians have a very thin population in India and no action in their favour will hardly reflect in the elections.

The high court decision itself was challenged by various social and religious organisations in the Supreme Court by arguing that gay sex is against the cultural and religious values of the country.

The ones who challenged the high court judgment included religious organisations like the VHP, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the Utkal Christian Council and the Apostolic Churches Alliance.

 

[renuka]

In fact our Hindu texts do talk about unnatural sex...In arthasastra it is called ayoni..There were penalties for that, but minor compared to adultery and rape

Actually I wonder if the terminology unnatural is right?

To a heterosexual person homosexuality is unnatural and to a homosexual person heterosexuality is unnatural...so I feel the term unnatural is confusing.

BTW most straight guys hate the very idea of homosexuality but start singing a different tune after a stint in prison.

Hey may be the Supreme Court Judges who came to the conclusion should be given an extended holiday in prison and after they come out they might actually reverse their decision in favor of homosexuality!LOL

 

[sarang]

Givers may be, but receivers definitely not. Giver need not go to prison!! MSM will be busy with "RS" cases.

"Amend Section 377 immediately, MP minister charged with sodomy says”

Actually I wonder if the terminology unnatural is right?

To a heterosexual person homosexuality is unnatural and to a homosexual person heterosexuality is unnatural...so I feel the term unnatural is confusing.

BTW most straight guys hate the very idea of homosexuality but start singing a different tune after a stint in prison.

Hey may be the Supreme Court Judges who came to the conclusion should be given an extended holiday in prison and after they come out they might actually reverse their decision in favor of homosexuality!LOL

 

[Kuvalayavalli]

Actually I wonder if the terminology unnatural is right?

To a heterosexual person homosexuality is unnatural and to a homosexual person heterosexuality is unnatural...so I feel the term unnatural is confusing.

BTW most straight guys hate the very idea of homosexuality but start singing a different tune after a stint in prison.

Hey may be the Supreme Court Judges who came to the conclusion should be given an extended holiday in prison and after they come out they might actually reverse their decision in favor of homosexuality!LOL

Dear Renuka,

You are a Physician and you know better about the Anatomy, Physiology of Human Body.

What does you Medical Texts say about Human Body? Is the Human Body by itself Natural or unnatural? If the Human Being is Natural then is not unnatural alien to the Human Body which is but a physical manifestation of the Human Being?

Is it medically advisable, hygienic to engage in co-gender coitus?

 

[prasad1]

Gay sex verdict: Rajnath Singh backs SC, says BJP cannot justify unnatural acts

 

[sarang]

Congress has back tracked. It will not promulgate an ordinance, which has to be ratified before six months by the parliament. With all in congress - sonia, rahul, sibal, chidambaram - against supreme court judgement, ordinance is a valid route to put their words in action. The same congress govt in 2009 has argued that lgbt is illegal.

 

[krish44]

Congress has back tracked. It will not promulgate an ordinance, which has to be ratified before six months by the parliament. With all in congress - sonia, rahul, sibal, chidambaram - against supreme court judgement, ordinance is a valid route to put their words in action. The same congress govt in 2009 has argued that lgbt is illegal.

congress might be thinking of LGBT vote bank and votes of liberal minded indians. personally I feel criminality associated with it should be done away with as it will put this community at loggerheads with law enforcement agencies .They will have free run and extortion by police will haunt the community

 

[krish44]

Gay sex verdict: Rajnath Singh backs SC, says BJP cannot justify unnatural acts

BJP is coming out in true colours.

 

[Nara]

BJP is coming out in true colours.

Krish44, you are so true, BJP, or Congress, they care a rat's ahem, they will be for a monkey wedding a donkey if that would advance their chances for gaining political power. These two judges are a disgrace, it would be a shame if India is more like Russia than the predominantly catholic Argentina.....

 

[sarang]

In dinamalr survey 87% support supreme court ruling. Yagnavalki smruti says that the king should not interfere in the local customs of conquered lands; every minority group had a different custom. Now with majority democracy, this is not possible. This was bandied about in the past 'conscience vote' by the elected members; will it help?

congress might be thinking of LGBT vote bank and votes of liberal minded indians. personally I feel criminality associated with it should be done away with as it will put this community at loggerheads with law enforcement agencies .They will have free run and extortion by police will haunt the community

 

[vgane]

I am copying a message posted by a heterosexual about homesexuality..How true this is!!

Quote

For homosexuals their sexual behaviour may be normal. But the question is whether their
'normality' becomes torture for heterosexually- oriented people. They may not identify similarly-oriented partners all the time. They may eye for the wrong guy and cause agony to the victim. Don't we come across men who make predatory advances at people of their own sex just
as rapists do? Law is necessary to curb such tendencies. When we speak for the liberty of homosexuals, we should not ignore the safety of heterosexuals!

Unquote

 

[Vaagmi]

My thoughts on this issue:

1. vote bank or no vote bank homosexuality is an individual preference. So there is no need to criminalise it and make it a punishable offence.

2. There is no need to do anything that will give an impression that the Govt. is encouraging it because it is a deviant behavior. It is unnatural. I dont subscribe to the liberal theory that any orifice is ok as long as an individual has an orientation or a preference.

3. A sexual practice has three basic reasons. a)harmones b)pheromones c)a need for love culminating in physical union,d)the need to have children. Among all the 4reasons the last one is the socially relevant one. Homosexuality has nothing to do with the last one viz.having children.

4. The Govt should take steps to decriminalize homosexuality as long as it is practised in private. There can not be any reason to treat homosexuals also as a social minority and give them the benefits of other minorities. There is no need to recognize a gay/lesbian marriage as a legally valid marriage. It will lead to comic situations like a "widow"/"widower" claiming the benefits under law when one partner passes away.

5. It is a peculiar, deviant, kinky trait to be confined to individual bed rooms. Homosexuals are people who deserve sympathy for their pathetic existence and nothing more.