Check out 16 Return-To-Work Programs In India For Ambitious Women Like You!
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 two lovely daughters. read more...
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
UP Boards Topper Prachi Nigam was trolled on social media for her facial hair; our obsession with appearance is harsh on young minds.
Prachi Nigam’s photo has been doing the rounds on social media for the right reasons. Well, scratch that- I wish the above statement were true. This 15-year-old girl should ideally be revelling in her spectacular achievement of scoring a whopping 98.05% and topping her tenth-grade boards. But oddly enough, along with her marks, it’s something else that garners more attention – her facial hair.
While the trolls are driving themselves giddy by mocking this girl who hasn’t even completed her school yet, the ones who are taking her side are going one step ahead – they are sharing her photoshopped pictures, sans the facial hair, looking nothing less than a celebrity with captions saying – “Prachi Nigam, ten years later”.
Doctors have already diagnosed her with PCOD in their comments, based on photographic evidence. While we have names for people shamed for their weight – body shaming, for their skin colour- racism, for their age- age shaming, for being a female- sexism, this category of shaming where one faces criticism for their appearance has no name. With that, it also has zero shame attached to it.
Please enter your email address