Indian SC Rules Homosexuality A Criminal Offence

[Chronos]

Mr. Vahanvati had said “the introduction of Section 377 in the IPC was not a reflection of existing Indian values and traditions, rather it was imposed upon Indian society by the colonisers due to their moral values. The Indian society prevalent before the enactment of the IPC had a much greater tolerance for homosexuality than its British counterpart, which at this time under the influence of Victorian morality and values in regard to family and the procreative nature of sex.”
Parents of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders told the court that the Delhi High Court judgment decriminalising IPC Section 377 between two consenting adults should not be interfered with. It was argued on their behalf that Section 377 created a sense of fear among them which was against their right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Apostolic Churches Alliance (ACA) had strongly opposed the Delhi High Court judgment.



Homosexuality illegal: SC - The Hindu


What an absolute travesty of a Judgement.

And these Muslim, Christian or whatever Religious organisation that opposes the decriminalization of an aspect that is intrinsically Human needs to take a step back, breathe in and copulate with themselves.


Let's see if the government can pull themselves off the 18th century Victorian outlook

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

Same thread is already running.....

 

[Chronos]

Same thread is already running.....

Really?

Request for a merger?

 

[IndoCarib]

Very retrogressive step by SC. When the whole world is waking up to same sex marraige, old men of SC still have in 18th century mindset. Govt needs to form a law to allow gay sex

 

[Cheetah786]

Mr. Vahanvati had said “the introduction of Section 377 in the IPC was not a reflection of existing Indian values and traditions, rather it was imposed upon Indian society by the colonisers due to their moral values. The Indian society prevalent before the enactment of the IPC had a much greater tolerance for homosexuality than its British counterpart, which at this time under the influence of Victorian morality and values in regard to family and the procreative nature of sex.”
Parents of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders told the court that the Delhi High Court judgment decriminalising IPC Section 377 between two consenting adults should not be interfered with. It was argued on their behalf that Section 377 created a sense of fear among them which was against their right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Apostolic Churches Alliance (ACA) had strongly opposed the Delhi High Court judgment.



Homosexuality illegal: SC - The Hindu


What an absolute travesty of a Judgement.

And these Muslim, Christian or whatever Religious organization that opposes the decriminalization of an aspect that is intrinsically Human needs to take a step back, breathe in and copulate with themselves.


Let's see if the government can pull themselves off the 18th century Victorian outlook

I take it Hindu and Sikh indians accept homosexuality and only Muslims and christian s have a problem with it since you went out of your way to point that out.

In this case court is 100% right changing the laws is parliament job not the judges. The Supreme Court rejected that decision Wednesday, saying the old law was still constitutionally valid and could only be changed or erased through Parliament, not the courts.And if you think the majority has no problem with the law being over turned. i see no reason for politicians to hesitate and go ahead and bring in this change.

 

[Iggy]

I am very much disappointed with this verdict..

 

[Indo-guy]

I take it Hindu and Sikh indians accept homosexuality and only Muslims and christian s have a problem with it since you went out of your way to point that out.

In this case court is 100% right changing the laws is parliament job not the judges. The Supreme Court rejected that decision Wednesday, saying the old law was still constitutionally valid and could only be changed or erased through Parliament, not the courts.And if you think the majority has no problem with the law being over turned. i see no reason for politicians to hesitate and go ahead and bring in this change.

what has happened that that judiciary has shunned from taking decision and has passed buck to the parliament .
Questions like these are not to be settled by majority vote or so ....

This question impinges upon basic human rights ...and the fundamental values should not be subjected to majority vote ...

The judiciary as custodians of constitution should have granted sanctity to this basic fundamental right of Equality enshrined in constitution to all its citizens ....which they have clearly failed to do so .

I am very much disappointed with this verdict..

what is shocking that Supreme court has trampled the basic right in process to align with mainstream opinion ....

I always thought guardians of law would always work without fear or favor ....

Unfortunately it is not so ...

Judges are also humans and suffer same frailties as ordinary human beings can be afflicted with .

Sad day for India !

 

[adwityagrata]

what has happened that that judiciary has shunned from taking decision and has passed buck to the parliament .
Questions like these are not to be settled by majority vote or so ....
This question impinges upon basic human rights ...and the fundamental values should not be subjected to majority vote ...
The judiciary as custodians of constitution should have granted sanctity to this basic fundamental right of Equality enshrined in constitution to all its citizens ....which they have clearly failed to do so .

Total nonsense.

The SC has merely overturned an earlier judgement of the HC that held section 377 in violation of article 14, 15 and 21. They were quite correct in this judgement as section 377 does not violate the mentioned articles.

Indian constitution does not provide complete freedom of expression. Hate speech is not allowed. Similarly under section 377 gay sex is also not allowed.

Since right to gay sex is NOT a fundamental right in India, SC has no business making it one. That is the right of the Parliament.

what is shocking that Supreme court has trampled the basic right in process to align with mainstream opinion ....
I always thought guardians of law would always work without fear or favor ....
Unfortunately it is not so ...
Judges are also humans and suffer same frailties as ordinary human beings can be afflicted with .
Sad day for India !

Only thing shocking is your ignorance of the law and your limited ability to understand the role of the SC and passing moral judgement on SC judges. LOL.

 

[Indischer]

Indian constitution does not provide complete freedom of expression. Hate speech is not allowed. Similarly under section 377 gay sex is also not allowed.

Since right to gay sex is NOT a fundamental right in India, SC has no business making it one. That is the right of the Parliament.

How is hate speech similar to gay sex?? The homosexuals are not abusing/cussing the heterosexuals during sex, are they?
Right to heterosexual sex is NOT a fundamental right in India either. Has it stopped anyone from experiencing it? Why should Homosexuals be persecuted for something that Heterosexuals do all the time?

 

[adwityagrata]

How is hate speech similar to gay sex?? The homosexuals are not abusing/cussing the heterosexuals during sex, are they?
Right to heterosexual sex is NOT a fundamental right in India either. Has it stopped anyone from experiencing it? Why should Homosexuals be persecuted for something that Heterosexuals do all the time?

Ever heard of freedom of expression ? or does your limited understanding see it as only speech ?

First read section 377 of the Indian constitution before talking nonsense. Then read the SC judgement. Then if you still do not understand, ask relevant questions.

Even the pakistani poster Cheetah786 seem to have a better understanding of the situation than you.

 

[Indischer]

Ever heard of freedom of expression ? or does your limited understanding see it as only speech ?

First read section 377 of the Indian constitution before talking nonsense. Then read the SC judgement. Then if you still do not understand, ask relevant questions.

Even the pakistani poster Cheetah786 seem to have a better understanding of the situation than you.

What some random Pakistani thinks is not my concern. The law in question and it's ramifications are taking place in India, not Pakistan.

Does the freedom of expression criminalize homosexuality? If so, why? If sodomy is against "natural order" what exactly have the law enforcement authorities done to ensure it isn't practised during heterosexual sex?

 

[adwityagrata]

What some random Pakistani thinks is not my concern. The law in question and it's ramifications are taking place in India, not Pakistan.

He has a better understanding of Indian law and Indian SC judgement than you.

Does the freedom of expression criminalize homosexuality? If so, why?

Its called section 377 of the constitution of India.

If sodomy is against "natural order" what exactly have the law enforcement authorities done to ensure it isn't practised during heterosexual sex?

You clearly do not understand the difference between Law Enforcement i.e Executive, the Legislative i.e. Parliament and the Judiciary i.e. SC. If you need answers on law enforcement, contact your nearest police station or write a letter to the police commissioner in your city.

 

[Indischer]

Back to your convoluted best? Any Indian who regularly reads a damn Newspaper knows about section 377. The SC in placing the onus back on the Parliament to amend the law, has shirked away from standing up to idiots who oppose Homosexuality without understanding who made it illegal and on what grounds. The least the SC could have done was to uphold the HC's verdict on section 377 and then direct the Parliament to suitably amend it.

And you haven't even given a thought to the implications of section 377. Any man, woman or animal that engages in carnal intercourse and similar acts that are "against the order of nature" is liable for punishment(life imprisonment is also applicable). Who is responsible for ensuring this rule? The Parliament, SC or Local Law Enforcement? It's the third option, genius!

The problem arises when the Police use this ruling to selectively target homosexuals and harass them regularly. A homosexual is assumed de facto to be liable for punishment under section 377, when in reality it targets everyone engaging in anal/oral sex.( UK, which introduced this law, is now going to legalize gay marriage soon. Meanwhile, many in India are suddenly discovering that they always wanted to be Christian Vigilantes)

 

[livingdead]

Its the job of parliament to pass law, but I would expect supreme court to reduce judicial activism as a whole rather than case by case basis. There has been many instances in which courts have interfered in matters that was suppsed to be dealt by parliament.

 

[jaunty]

I can see logic in the SC's verdict that it is the parliament that should amend the existing laws. But sadly I don't see that happening any time soon. So the Delhi HC order was the only ray of hope and the SC should have just upheld it. This will take the country backwards, as the politicians in the parliament aren't bothered to make any changes on this.