Related Stories

DC debate on Sec 377 on gay marriages

Published Dec 12, 2013, 2:26 pm IST
Updated Mar 18, 2019, 11:28 pm IST

Court won’t support unnatural behaviour - C.V.L. Narasimha Rao, Civil lawyer in AP High Court, actor

Lawmakers make laws for the wellbeing of society. They have specifically differentiated the behaviour of mankind as natural and unnatural.
It is our strong belief that physical relationship between two individuals cannot be other than between a man and a woman. That is the reason the Indian Penal Code has incorporated Section 377, giving room for punishment for unnatural sex.

The increasing trends of globalisation, consumerism and nuclear families have given rise to this kind of unnatural behaviour.

The Supreme Court has rightly observed that as long as the law is in force, the society has to follow the same and law enforcers are supposed to ensure that every individual follows the law.
In the name of personal choice and belief, some groups are trying to raise their voice in support of this kind of behaviour, and it is not at all acceptable for the wellbeing of society.

If a few groups feel that their personal rights are infringed upon, they should ventilate their grievance in the right direction, which is by asking for an amendment in the existing law or a special enactment.

However, medical experience shows that unnatural sex is one of the reasons for the spreading of AIDS in society.

Society certainly will have sympathy towards the third gender, but it cannot extend its sympathy towards homosexuals and lesbians in the name of freedom.

The institution of marriage has a special place in society, and that is the reason for the verdict. It is the sacred principle of a man and a woman living together for their entire lives. People who do not believe in the institution of marriage and who want to go for free sex are the root cause of this malady.

That is the reason that medical experts have also stated that this is a psychological illness and the Supreme Court rightly gave the judgement condemning the version of the homosexuals.
It is also difficult for parents to accept it when their children come out in the open about their orientation, as it is a major cultural shock for them.

Homosexuality will still take a while for people in India to come to terms with.

Next: Section 377 is against right to equality

Section 377 is against right to equality - Meena Kandasamy, poet, writer, human rights activist

By upholding the Constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has not only taken our society backwards in time, but has also put its conservative and patriarchal mores into a basic misreading of the Indian Constitution itself.

Even as we decry such a judgement that denies full citizenship to homosexuals, we should not fail to note that the Indian judicial system has been consistently marked for its regressive nature and its refusal to move in tune with times.

When Para 52 of that judgement contains the phrase, “the so-called rights of LGBT persons,” the citizens of this India, irrespective of their sexual preferences, do not have to recognise or respect the “so-called” Supreme Court of India.

Apart from criminalising consensual homosexual acts, quoting 13th Century English texts that sodomites should be burnt alive, a thread of religious morality permeates the SC judgement.
The appellants — fundamentalists from Hindu, Christian and Muslim backgrounds — extended arguments that homosexual intercourse would lead to unmanliness and lead to a person not being useful in society and so on.

In an ideal, egalitarian world, the Supreme Court would not have entertained such hateful and paranoid arguments of demented homophobes, and, as an act of goodwill towards the human race, referred these religious hate-mongers to counselling.

Instead, the court was busy saying “without any hesitation of contradiction that the orifice of mouth is not, according to nature, meant for sexual or carnal intercourse.” It is a shame on the judiciary to decide which are the human orifices meant for sexual or carnal intercourse “according to nature.” If humanity lived strictly according to what nature intended, we would have no modern medicine, no educational system, and no Supreme Court of India. I’m not getting personal, but even the courthouse of a sub-divisional magistrate would not exist in such a pure, natural state.
The Bench has also come up with a finding that LGBT people constitute a ‘minuscule fraction of the country’s population.’ Allowing majoritarianism and populism become the basis for law-formation will only entail in a dangerous situation where the minorities lose all rights. And how do we know the real numbers, when people cannot even come out of the closet for fear of being criminalised by the same judicial system?

If the Constitution is the touchstone for the laws of the land, then a colonial-era law like Section 377 should cease to exist because it runs against the right to equality and the right not to be discriminated on the grounds of sex.

With regard to Wednesday’s judgement, we would rather be in jail for holding this feudalistic Supreme Court in contempt, instead of being complicit with institutionalised homophobia.
Let this reactionary judgement be our invitation to action.



More From Current Affairs