End to unnatural exclusion
Shohini Ghosh, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, July 02, 2009

In a historic judgement, a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A
P Shah and Justice Murlidharan has decriminalised non-heterosexual sex
between consenting adults. In an eloquently argued judgement of 150
pages, the bench has struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), a colonial legislation drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, that
criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”
punishable by imprisonment extending up to ten years. India was one of
the few countries left in the world that criminalised and
discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. By overturning
Section 377, the Delhi High Court has foregrounded the importance of
sexual rights, lent dignity to people of different sexualities and
upheld the Constitutional values of democracy and equality.

Arguing that Section 377 is violative of Articles 21 (right to life
and personal liberty), Article 14 (equality before law and equal
protection from law) and Article 15 (prohibiting discrimination on
several grounds including sex), the judgement holds that if there is
one “constitutional tenet” that can be considered an “underlying
theme” of the Indian Constitution, it is “inclusiveness”.

Nurtured over many years, “inclusiveness” recognises “a role in
society for everyone” where “those perceived by the majority as
‘deviants’ or ‘different’ are not ‘excluded or ostracised’”. It argues
that “Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to
be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) are. It cannot be forgotten that
discrimination is the antithesis of equality and that it is the
recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every
individual.”

However, it retains the provisions of Section 377 to govern
“non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex
involving minors” thereby allowing child sexual offenders to be
prosecuted under it. However, it is now being strongly argued that
child rights are best protected, not by the provisions of 377, but an
entirely separate law.

This visionary judgement is the culmination of a ten-year legal
battle. In 2001 Naz Foundation (an NGO related to HIV/Aids issues)
filed a petition in the Delhi High Court asking for Section 377 to be
‘read down’ by decriminalising consensual sex among adults. In
September 2003, the Government insisted on retaining Section 377 on
the grounds that ‘Indian society’s disapproval of homosexuality was
strong enough to justify it being treated as a criminal offence even
where adults indulge in it in private’.

In February 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the High Court to
reconsider the constitutional validity of Section 377. The Naz
Foundation petition was supported by Voices Against 377, comprising 12
organisations across the country while it was being opposed by the
government of Delhi and others. The position of the government
(represented by the Ministries of Health and Law) has been conflicted
while many of its affiliates demanded decriminalisation.

Naco (National Aids Control Organisation) demanded the scrapping of
Section 377 as it was obstructing effective health interventions. The
172nd report of the Law Commission of India and the recommendations of
the National Planning Commission for the 11th Five Year Plan also
demanded decriminalisation of homosexuality.

In the last two decades, LGBT activism played a major role in creating
awareness on the issue. In 2006 writer Vikram Seth released a public
letter demanding that the “cruel” law be struck down. The letter was
supported by a  large number of signatories including Captain Lakshmi
Sehgal, Aruna Roy, Soli Sorabjee, Shyam Benegal, Shubha Mudgal,
Arundhati Roy, Aparna Sen, Mrinalini Sarabhai and demanded the
scrapping of the “brutal law” that “punitively criminalises romantic
love and private, consensual sexual acts between adults of the same
sex” while being used to “systematically persecute, blackmail, arrest
and terrorise sexual minorities”. Amartya Sen also asked for an
abolition of the “colonial era monstrosity” that ran contrary to “the
enhancement of human freedom” and India’s commitment to “democracy and
human rights”.

Like all laws, Section 377 was used both inside and outside the
courtroom. In 2001, activists of Bharosa Trust, Lucknow were arrested
under Section 377 for running a “gay racket” and conspiring to
“promote homosexuality” through advocating safe sex practices among
homosexual and bisexual men. In 2006, the Lucknow police entrapped
five gay men by tracking them over the internet and then arresting
them under Section 377. For years, police have used Section 377 to
extort, threaten, intimidate and harass LGBT people. Commenting on how
law-enforcers can misuse such penalisable offences, Amartya Sen
observed that the harm done by such an “an unjust law” can, therefore,
“be far larger than would be indicated by cases of actual
prosecution”.

It remains to be seen how the UPA government responds to a judgement
that derives its inspiration from a Nehruvian vision of ‘Equality’.
While moving the ‘Objective Resolution’ on December 13, 1946,
Jawaharlal Nehru said (and the Judgement quotes): “Words are magic
things often enough, but even the magic of words sometimes cannot
convey the magic of the human spirit and of a Nation’s passion. [The
Resolution] seeks very feebly to tell the world of what we have
thought or dreamt of so long, and what we now hope to achieve in the
near future.”

These words no doubt echo the feelings and aspirations of all LGBT
people and their friends and family.

Shohini Ghosh is Sajjad Zaheer Professor at the AJK Mass Communication
Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

-- 
0091 9810522986
http://aryakrishnan.blogspot.com
www.bookport.in

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
 To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
 For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to