July 2, 2009, had delivered a historic judgement to amend a 149-year-old
colonial-era law - Section 377 of the IPC - and decriminalise private
consensual sex between adults of the same sex. The judgment was seen as the
biggest victory yet for gay rights.
colonial-era law - Section 377 of the IPC - and decriminalise private
consensual sex between adults of the same sex. The judgment was seen as the
biggest victory yet for gay rights.
The two judge bench had held: "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."
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday opposed dilution of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by Delhi high court, which decriminalised sexual acts, in private, between consenting adults of the same sex and urged the Supreme Court to reverse the landmark ruling. The UPA government told the Supreme Court that the HC had erred because a vast section of the Indian society still considered homosexuality immoral.
The Delhi high court on July 2, 2009, had delivered a historic judgement to amend a 149-year-old colonial-era law - Section 377 of the IPC - and decriminalise private consensual sex between adults of the same sex. The judgment was seen as the biggest victory yet for gay rights.
Gay sex "is highly immoral and against the social order," additional solicitor general PP Malhotra, who is representing the Centre, told the apex court on Thursday.
He added that it was "against nature and spreads HIV."
The Centre said it favoured the ban staying in place in order to prevent child abuse and because Indian society was largely against homosexuality according to a survey by the Law Commission. "Laws can't run separately from society and the morals of the time," Malhotra said.
The Centre said it favoured the ban staying in place in order to prevent child abuse and because Indian society was largely against homosexuality according to a survey by the Law Commission. "Laws can't run separately from society and the morals of the time," Malhotra said.
When the Supreme Court asked who decided what was immoral, the Union government said society did so and argued that the Indian laws could not but reflect the views of its society. The government said the HC considered only judgements of foreign countries where homosexuality may not be resented.
"Our moral and social values are different from other countries and we cannot be guided by them,' the Centre told the court.
Hence, it appealed that the provision be retained in full to reflect the society's views. Though the Centre had not appealed against the judgement, the ministry of Home affairs came out strongly against the dilution of Section 377.
The Union home ministry, however, denied that it had taken any position on homosexuality. In a statement, the ministry said: "After the judgment of the High Court, Delhi, decriminalizing homosexuality, was delivered, the matter was considered by the Cabinet. The decision of the Cabinet was that the Central government may not file an appeal against the judgment in the Supreme Court; however, if any other party to the case prefers an appeal, the Attorney General may be requested to assist the Supreme Court to examine the matter and to decide the legal questions involved. Home ministry conveyed this decision to the AG."
"The ministry has also not given any instruction apart from conveying the decision of the Cabinet," it said.
| ||
| ||
| ||
| Home Ministry tells Supreme Court that gay sex in India is immoral and against ... Zee News New Delhi: The Union Home Ministry on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was opposed to the decriminalisation of gay sex. "This is highly immoral and against the social order," the Home Ministry told the apex court. It said that India``s moral and ... See all stories on this topic » | ||
| Confusion at India's Supreme Court over whether government wants homosexuality ... Washington Post NEW DELHI — A sensitive debate over gay sex in India was thrown into farcical confusion Thursday after a government lawyer urged the Supreme Court to ban it — only for the government to issue a contradictory statement hours later, saying it accepts a ... See all stories on this topic » | ||
| Centre tells Supreme Court gay sex immoral, calls for new ban Times of India NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday opposed dilution of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by Delhi high court, which decriminalised sexual acts, in private, between consenting adults and urged the Supreme Court to reverse the landmark ruling. See all stories on this topic » | ||
| ||
| Home Ministry denies taking stand on gay sex; refutes ASG's position Daily News & Analysis Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI Shortly after a top law officer disapproved gay sex as highly "immoral" in the Supreme Court, the Home Ministry today said it has not taken any stand on the Delhi High Court order decriminalising homosexuality. See all stories on this topic » | ||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment