Millennium Post

SC begins hearing on pleas to decriminal­ise homosexual­ity

- OUR CORRESPOND­ENT

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that it would not venture into the issue of marriage relating to the LGBTQ community or inheritanc­e in live-in relationsh­ips, as it commenced a crucial hearing on a clutch of pleas seeking decriminal­isation of consensual gay sex.

The apex court said it would only deal with the question of validity of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalis­es consensual sex between two adults of the same gender.

A five-judge constituti­on bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it will examine the correctnes­s of its 2013 verdict that had set aside the Delhi High Court judgement decriminal­ising gay sex under section 377.

Section 377 refers to ‘unnatural offences’ and says whoever voluntaril­y has carnal intercours­e against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonme­nt for life, or with imprisonme­nt of either descriptio­n for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

“The question here is whether Section 377 of the IPC is ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power) or not. Let us get out of this maze. We cannot now give an advance ruling on questions like inheritanc­e to live-in partners or whether they can marry.

“Those are individual issues we cannot pre-judge now,” the bench, also comprising Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachu­d and Indu Malhotra, said while outlining the broad issues which would be open for arguments.

The observatio­ns came when former Attorney General and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for dancer and one of the petitioner­s Navtej Jauhar, said, “My life as a sexual minority has to be protected. Do not restrict this hearing to just Section 377 of the IPC. Our lives are passing by. How many of us can come on individual issues later?”

Referring to the provision, the bench said two separate and distinct issues were open for argument and they were whether the sex against the order of nature, as prescribed under the law, was “retrograde” and can the sexual rights be denied to persons just because they form a minuscule minority.

When the hearing was about to commence on the batch of writ petitions, an advocate appearing for NGO Naaz Foundation, which was the first petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court in 2001 on the issue, sought permission to intervene.

 ??  ?? Three of the 20 petitioner­s, who had challenged the Section 377 of IPC, stand on the Supreme Court lawn during a hearing on their petition, in New Delhi on Tuesday
Three of the 20 petitioner­s, who had challenged the Section 377 of IPC, stand on the Supreme Court lawn during a hearing on their petition, in New Delhi on Tuesday

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India