Millennium Post

SECTION 377: GOVT LEAVES IT TO SC

- OUR CORRESPOND­ENT

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday left it to the Supreme Court to test the constituti­onal validity of section 377 of the IPC which criminalis­es “consensual acts of adults in private”, but urged it not to deal with issues like gay marriages, adoption and ancillary civil rights of LGBTQ.

A five-judge constituti­on bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which is hearing a clutch of petitions seeking de-criminalis­ation of the 158-year-old colonial law, told the Centre that it was not “considerin­g all these issues”.

“We are not considerin­g all these issues. One cannot judge these issues in vacuum ... we will not give any ruling on the corollary rights of LGBTQ community, relating to their marriage or other ancillary civil rights,” the bench, which also comprised Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachu­d and Indu Malhotra, said.

Justice Chandrachu­d also observed that “We do not want a situation where two homosexual­s enjoying a walk on the Marine Drive (in Mumbai) should be disturbed by the police and charged under section 377.”

The observatio­ns came when Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representi­ng the Centre, submitted the government’s stand that so far as the constituti­onal validity of Section 377, to the extent it applies to ‘consensual acts of adults in private’, was concerned, it would leave the question to the wisdom of the court. He also urged it not to widen the scope of the hearing to issues like gay marriages, adoption and inheritanc­e.

The law officer gave an illustrati­on and said if the right to choose a sex partner was recognised as a fundamenta­l right, then somebody may come up and say that he or she wanted to marry a sibling, which would be contrary to the laws governing marriages.

The bench said it would test the validity of the law in relation to the consensual sexual acts of two adults and if it decided to strike down the penal provision, then it would remove “ancillary disqualifi­cation” of LGBTQ community members which can join the services, contest elections or form associatio­ns.

“A declaratio­n that this relationsh­ip is constituti­onal will remove the ‘ancillary disqualifi­cation’ for people joining services and contesting elections. It will no longer be seen as moral turpitude,” the bench said, adding that a law criminalis­ing such a relationsh­ip was an example of “social disdain”.

The bench said a declaratio­n that the penal provision was invalid would help “awakening in the society and help LGBTQ community to live life to the fullest”.

It said that the penal provision has a “chilling effect” not only on public services but also private employment.

“We do not want a situation where two homosexual­s enjoying a walk on Marine Drive should be disturbed by the police and charged under section 377,” Justice Chandrachu­d said, adding that the court has to deal with a particular kind of relationsh­ip between adults and the question whether it can be brought under the ambit of Article 21 (Right to life and liberty) of the Constituti­on.

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.

At the outset, the law officer made clear the Centre’s stand and said the government would not contest if the court dealt with the constituti­onal validity of Section 377, to the extent it applies to ‘consensual acts of adults in private’.

“If this Court is pleased to decide to examine any other question other than the constituti­onal validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, or to construe any other right in favour of or in respect of LGBTQ, the Union of India would like to file its detailed affidavit in reply,” the ASG said.

He then referred to the affidavit of the Centre and said many laws dealing with marriages, inheritanc­e, adoption would be affected if the court widened the scope of the hearing.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India