Check out 16 Return-To-Work Programs In India For Ambitious Women Like You!
Article 377, an archaic law that criminalises consenting adults has been referred by the Supreme Court to a new bench. Cause for hope?
As I walked through Gate no. D of the Supreme Court (SC) complex, I felt a giddiness in the pit of my stomach. It was my first ever visit to the apex court and the occasion was made doubly special by the motive behind the visit. The curative petition against the court’s December 2013 verdict which had reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was up for consideration.
Section 377 is widely known by now for being a notorious and archaic law that makes all forms of sexual intercourse that are against the ‘order of nature’ a criminal offence, the maximum punishment for which is life imprisonment. To everyone’s pleasant surprise, the 3 judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) T.S. Thakur, referred the matter to a constitutional bench, which would consist of 5 judges.
This may seem as a small victory right now, but if put in the wider context of the issue, is actually a big deal. Firstly, given the history of curative petitions (which is itself a new innovation brought in by the SC in 2002), the fact that it did not get instantly dismissed is remarkable.
Secondly, it is rarely seen that the SC agrees to hear a curative petition in an open-court as opposed to closed chambers. These two factors have greatly boosted the morale of the petitioners as well as the larger LGBT+ community, which was terribly letdown by the December 2013 verdict; but now seems more hopeful.
As LGBT activist and Naz Foundation Director Anjali Gopalan put it, “Now, the court is going to look at the constitutional arguments to decriminalise homosexuality, hopes have been raised that if the petition has been accepted that means they see some merit in it. Let’s hope this is the last leg of the fight.”
As we wait for the new bench to be constituted and a new hearing date set, a recurrent question (which was asked by the numerous media persons assembled on the SC lawns) comes to my mind: what are our expectations from the future course of action on this case?
In the best case scenario the SC will realize its 2013 oversight of epic proportions, decriminalize section 377, and we can finally heave a sigh of relief and rejoice. But in order for that to happen, the SC will have to be convinced that the 2013 verdict was a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’, a ‘violation of natural justice’ or a ‘suspected bias by a presiding judge’; these are the stringent parameters which the curative petition needs to meet.
The SC doesn’t need to look too far when it considers the petition; the Delhi HC in 2009 had struck down section 377 for violating the fundamental rights to life and liberty and the right to equality before the law of the Constitution. More importantly, the SC should on humanitarian grounds get rid of this law, that has put the life and dignity of millions at risk, and has institutionally legitimized the discrimination and violations faced by the LGBT+ community on a daily basis.
A person’s sexual orientation, especially today in the 21st century, should not be subjected to the kind of bias, ignorance and shame, as is done in our country. The very fact that I’m typing this piece out in 2016 puts to question every kind of ‘progress’ we feel we have achieved. A positive SC judgment in the future needs to be the starting point for the systematic removal of discrimination and alienation of this community.
Notions that such ‘practices’ are ‘Western imports’, ‘Genetic disorders’ or ‘Mental illnesses’ reek of a society that is stranded in an ancient century, and can only dream of real progress and development.
Dr. Ambedkar’s words on 25th November 1949 (commemorating the adoption of the new Constitution) ring loud in our ears today, “On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.”
Here’s hoping that the SC, which also has a history of being progressive, removes one such gross inequality and restores our collective dignity.
Image of multiple hearts courtesy Shutterstock
Extremely enthusiastic about writing, reading, movies and food; though not necessarily in that order! A Feminist by choice and finds comfort in giving 'gyaan' from time to time. Would love constructive feedback on my writing read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Neena was the sole caregiver of Amma and though one would think that Amma was dependent on her, Neena felt otherwise.
Neena inhaled the aroma that emanated from the pan and took a deep breath. The aroma of cumin interspersed with butter transported her back to the modest kitchen in her native village. She could picture her father standing in the kitchen wearing his white crisp kurta as he made delectable concoctions for his only daughter.
Neena grew up in a home where both her parents worked together in tandem to keep the house up and running. She had a blissful childhood in her modest two-room house. The house was small but every nook and cranny gave her memories of a lifetime. Neena’s young heart imagined that her life would follow the same cheerful course. But how wrong she was!
When she was sixteen, the catastrophic clutches of destiny snatched away her parents. They passed away in a road accident and Neena was devastated. Relatives thronged her now gloomy house and soon it was decided that she should be married off.
Women today don’t want to be in a partnership that complicates their lives further. They need an equal partner with whom they can figure out life as a team, playing by each other’s strengths.
We all are familiar with that one annoying aunty who is more interested in our marital status than in the dessert counter at a wedding. But these aunties have somehow become obsolete now. Now they are replaced by men we have in our lives. Friends, family, and even work colleagues. It’s the men who are worried about why we are not saying yes to one among their clans. What is wrong with us? Aren’t we scared of dying alone? Like them?
A recent interaction with a guy friend of mine turned sour when he lectured me about how I would regret not getting married at the right time. He lectured that every event in our lives needs to be completed within a certain timeframe set by society else we are doomed. I wasn’t angry. I was just disappointed to realize that annoying aunties are rapidly doubling in our society. And they don’t just appear at weddings or family functions anymore. They are everywhere. They are the real pandemic.
Let’s examine this a little closer.
Please enter your email address