Debate Mansion

   

Supreme Court rules gay sex is criminal offence

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 6

Page 1
Page   of 6
Page 2 Page 6

-Suhana-

IF-Dazzler

-Suhana-

Joined: 08 November 2011

Posts: 4647

Posted: 11 December 2013 at 6:48am | IP Logged

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalises homosexuality.

Setting aside a Delhi High Court that had struck down Section 377, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court said there is no constitutional indemnity provided to Section 377 and hence it is constitutionally valid. If the Section has to be changed, it is upto Parliament to do so, the court said.

The court was dealing with a bunch of petitions challenging the Delhi High Court judgement decriminalising gay sex among consenting adults in private.

The bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya delivered the verdict on petitions of anti-gay right activists, social and religious organisations against the 2009 verdict of the high court, which decriminalised gay sex.

The judgement was pronounced by Justice Singhvi on his last working day as he will be retiring on Wednesday. The bench had reserved its order in March last year after granting day-to-day hearing of the case from February 15, 2012.

While hearing the appeal, the apex court had pulled up the Centre for its "casual" approach on decriminalisation of homosexuality and also expressed concern over the Parliament not discussing such important issues and blaming judiciary instead for its "over-reach".

While pleading for decriminalisation of gay sex, the Centre had subsequently told the court that the anti-gay law in the country had resulted from British colonialism and the Indian society was much more tolerant towards homosexuality.

The Delhi High Court had on July 2, in 2009 decriminalised gay sex as provided in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had ruled that sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.

Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC makes gay sex a criminal offence entailing punishment up to life term. Senior BJP leader B P Singhal, who died in October last year, had challenged the high court verdict in the Supreme Court saying such acts are illegal, immoral and against the ethos of Indian culture.

Religious organisations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance too had challenged the judgement.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131211/news-current-affairs/article/gay-sex-criminal-offence-supreme-court

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Supreme Court rules gay sex is criminal offence" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 11 December 2013 at 8:30am | IP Logged
Now wait till they bring back Sati and child marriage and the practice of murdering rape victims for alleged loss of chastity and criminalize Valentine's Day and live in and dating at the behest of religious nutjobs. After all respecting religious sentiments and defending Indian ethos is of paramount importance. This is a country where marital rape is legal and consensual sex between homo/bisexual adults is criminal. All in the name of culture and family values, and in case other arguments fail - religious sentiments.

Some people are expecting the Parliament to undo the SC verdict and rule in favour of LGBT communities. And I'm like, are you insane? SC and HCs had always been our best hope for any kind of progressive move. Those 545 MPs have their own prejudices and priorities to look after. They are, for all practical purpose, the toy boys of the religious fundamentalists. There's not a single party that would dare to make a move on that front, especially on an issue where all religious (dick)heads are united against. And it becomes even more obvious when you count the fact that the right wing chaddis are set to get the crown in 2014.

What's interesting is to look where the impetus against DHC 2009 verdict came from. Here's the list of chief petitioners against the previous ruling that held the 'against the order of nature' aspect of 377 unconstitutional:


1. All India Muslim Personal Law Board
2. Utkal Christian Council
3. Apostolic Churches Alliance
4. Tamil Nadu Muslim Munn Kazhgam
5. SD Pratinidhi Sabha
6. Astrologer Suresh Kumar Kaushal
7. Yoga guru Ramdev's disciple S K Tijarawala

I remember during the MOTWs someone thought I freak too much against religions. Well, to that person, anyone who wishes to live in a free and equal world can never really freak enough against religion.

The following 18 member(s) liked the above post:

hotchilliRangRasiyaKidinki24LoveToLaughbright_star89-victoRiya-ILoveDramanebunamoomin4455aadkMedha.SFlawlessAshvik.AbhIyalicious.reeha...kcharminggenieSmritiKathaLadyDabangg....Poojie....

krystal_watz

IF-Sizzlerz

krystal_watz

Joined: 10 August 2009

Posts: 10248

Posted: 11 December 2013 at 11:31am | IP Logged
It was quite shocking. And I've no hope from the Legislature. But hope SC is pressurized into reviewing its decision after the public and media outrage like it did to grant relief to Campa Cola compound residents following media brouhaha. We can only hope. But heck, the news is depressing.


P.S. Rehanism, I've a small observation to make. No idea about Islam, Christianity or Semitism, but homosexuality was not traditionally taboo in ancient Hinduism like Ramdev and the dhongi Sanatanis claim. Just saying.

Edited by krystal_watz - 11 December 2013 at 9:57pm

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

iluvrevolutionnebunaMedha.S.AbhIyalicious.Super.Psycho_

hotchilli

Newbie

hotchilli

Joined: 11 December 2013

Posts: 3

Posted: 11 December 2013 at 11:30pm | IP Logged
Hi guys
I am new to this forum. I am more interested in current issues. So would like to know about your opinions about yesterdays court verdict against gay relation. 

I disagree. what about u guys. 






p.s - I am not sure about the rules here. so dont know whether v can discuss this topic. I am sorry of it is wrong.  

hotchilli

Newbie

hotchilli

Joined: 11 December 2013

Posts: 3

Posted: 11 December 2013 at 11:44pm | IP Logged
hi
I just opened a topic. i really want to debate would like to know how many are against ban on gay sex?


I completely disagree. 


Why the hell they bring religious in each and everything. They call India as secular country but suppress the minorityConfused.  Y is it illegal?  Is it a crime? Religious people argue that its against nature. Do someone choose to be gay? 

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 12 December 2013 at 5:11am | IP Logged
Originally posted by krystal_watz

It was quite shocking. And I've no hope from the Legislature. But hope SC is pressurized into reviewing its decision after the public and media outrage like it did to grant relief to Campa Cola compound residents following media brouhaha. We can only hope. But heck, the news is depressing.


P.S. Rehanism, I've a small observation to make. No idea about Islam, Christianity or Semitism, but homosexuality was not traditionally taboo in ancient Hinduism like Ramdev and the dhongi Sanatanis claim. Just saying.

I can't say that with certainty because orthodox Brahmins and the puritans have always seen homosexuals with disdain. Manusmriti and Chanakya's Arthashastra consider homosexuality a crime punishable by death or some form of mutilation. However there may have been cultures like Tantras who were more tolerant towards homosexuality. But since Hinduism at present, despite its diversity and heterogeneity, is largely represented by the views of Brahmins and Vaishnavas (both hardcore puritanical and misogynistic sects), I think its irrelevant to offer such apologies of ancient Hindus being more liberal. It serves no real purpose.

The point here is why a secular state should allow itself to be repeatedly bullied by religious elements and continue to compromise with basic human values for the sake of not offending religious sentiments?

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

-victoRiya-moomin4455

krystal_watz

IF-Sizzlerz

krystal_watz

Joined: 10 August 2009

Posts: 10248

Posted: 12 December 2013 at 7:37am | IP Logged
^^I read the news in detail in the newspaper this morning, and from what it appears, the Naz Foundation was unable to prove the claim of sexuality being a fundamental right. According to the SC panel of judges, there is no provision of "not discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation" in the Constitution, and hence, the law could not be termed unconstitutional. Confused

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 12 December 2013 at 7:40am | IP Logged
One ray of hope is that many of the ruling party leaders like Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, Shashi Tharoor and Milind Deora have made public statements in opposition to the SC verdict and 377 in general. However the bad news is Congress has made itself so unpopular that anything they say is being dismissed as anti-national and foreign conspiracy by the ever increasing right wing bandwagon. Hopefully they trash 377 before they themselves are trashed out in General Elections next year, because if that doesn't happen there's hardly any hope that LGBT community will get any justice any time soon.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Criminal looks?

2 3 4 5 6

Gumrah... 45 2553 21 May 2013 at 10:36pm
By Summer3
Genius or a Common Criminal ? Summer3 4 350 12 July 2010 at 2:03am
By Summer3
Comparative advertising is back! Rin Supreme ad instantkhichdi 0 1449 04 March 2010 at 6:00am
By instantkhichdi
Man is called the supreme creation ever c

2

RAJAYE_HIND 11 1138 08 October 2008 at 10:39am
By raj5000
Rules are rules?

2

raj5000 12 892 29 April 2007 at 8:16am
By raj5000

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.