Much noise has been created over the legalization of homosexuality by the Delhi High Court without understanding that Article 377 was a British creation
In recent months, much noise has been created over the legalization of homosexuality by the Delhi High Court. The Court, in July 2009, had struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ and prescribes a punishment of up to ten years imprisonment for such acts.
Chief Justice Mr. AP Shah had said, “We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.”
This section of the Indian Penal Code, like the Code itself, was a creation of the British, and came into force in 1860. Interestingly, England decriminalized homosexuality way back in 1967 by passing the Sexual Offences Act. In an earlier (1957) debate on the issue even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Geoffrey Fisher, spoke in support of decriminalizing homosexuality, saying that “There is a sacred realm of privacy… into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude. This is a principle of the utmost importance for the preservation of human freedom, self-respect, and responsibility.” The 1967 Act was a giant leap for England, because till 1861 the punishment for homosexuality was death in that country.
More recently, the Government of India tied itself in knots when an appeal against the order of the Delhi High Court was being heard in the Supreme Court. The Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. PP Malhotra said in the Supreme Court, “Gay sex is highly immoral and against social order and there is high chance of spreading of diseases (like AIDS) through such acts.” The Court, while discussing the issue, wanted to know the meaning of ‘order of nature’ from the Government. It asked, “Who is the expert to define the term ‘order of nature’, more so in relation to carnal intercourse? Meaning of words has never been constant. Test-tube babies, surrogate mothers – are they in the order of nature?”
I too have a few questions:
1. Is contraception against the order of nature? 2. Is consensual intercourse between a man and woman involving oral sex or anal sex against the order of nature? 3. Is talking dirty during sex against the order of nature?
I actually want to write to the Ministry of Law and Justice under the Right to Information Act seeking answers to these questions, but I know the reply I will get: “Your prayer under the RTI Act is denied as you have sought opinions and not information as defined in the said Act.”
An afterthought: Section 377 IPC also says, “Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.” Does that mean lesbianism was never a crime under this section?
Pic credit: Vereda Estreita (This picture of a campaigner at Europride 2011, Rome was used under a Creative Commons license)
I am a former bureaucrat, and have worked a lot on gender issues, disaster management and good governance. I am also the proud father of read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, indivisual posts do not necessarily represent the platofrom's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
In marriages, too, two different individuals live under one roof and tend to grow together. But, unfortunately, at times, their individual growth is impaired due to many external factors.
For Suniti, it was an altogether new experience. She and Rahul were like chalk and cheese.
Somewhere in the endless quest for perfect skin, glossy hair, six pack abs, fitting in with the current fashion trends and presenting a flawless self to the world, we lose ourselves.
Truth is beauty and beauty is truth. Penned beautifully by the great John Keats, eons ago. Cut to modern times: beauty is as far from truth as possible.
Due to Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 377 celebrations can be witnessed everywhere. But the major struggle still remains writes Parvadavardini Sethuraman.
Due to the Supreme Court’s Verdict on Section 377, celebrations can be witnessed everywhere. But the major struggle still remains, writes Parvadavardini Sethuraman.
Yesterday’s date would go down in our country’s history in bright letters. After years of struggle, the Supreme Court partially struck down the validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. In the words of the Honourable Supreme Court “Section 377, IPC, to the extent that it criminalises consensual sex between two adults is arbitrary, irrational and hence liable to be partially struck down.”
When relics of our cultural heritage like temple carvings show the prevalence of the various sexual orientations, then why are we criminalizing them?
The Supreme Court of India, in December 2013, held that the provision that criminalises homosexuality continues to remain in force, and remains constitutionally valid. In saying so, the Supreme Court overruled a decision of the High Court of Delhi, which in 2009 had ruled that the same provision was unconstitutional. The verdict upheld the validity of Section 377 of the Indian penal code, which penalises homosexuality with imprisonment for a life-term in jail, and describes the ‘crime’ as indulging in ‘carnal sex against the order of nature’.