India’s Supreme Court has left Gay legalization to Parliament: ‘Arguments pro and against'
The Supreme Court of India turned down the 2009 verdict of the Delhi High Court that decriminalised gay sex among consenting adults. It upheld the constitutional validity of the provision that gay sex is a punishable offence which can incur life imprisonment. Gay rights activitists and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community rocked the nation with protests.
However, the Supreme Court (SC) Justice G S Singhvi and S K Mukhopadhyay put the onus of taking the final decision on the matter on Indian Parliament. Famously, Vikram Seth has eloquently advocated gay rights and Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi have said that the consensual sex among same sex adults should be legalized. On the other hand, Home Minister Rajnath Singh had said that homosexuality is unnatural and alien to Indian ethos.
(Professor Rruchi Shrimalli has made both arguments and conclusion on prepsure.com)
Let’s delve deeper into the topic:
For Gay Sex
- It’s a free society: We live in a free society and what two individuals do in privacy should not be a concern for anyone else, if are not indulging in crime. Criminalising homosexual relationships will not change the sexual preferences of anyone. If Section 377 is scrapped, more people will be able to come out of the closet and will not have to live all their lives in denial or pain. It will also help the families to accept such individuals.
- Indian culture did not sideline homosexuals: Indian society had been quite tolerant towards the LGBT community historically. There are documentary, archaeological and anthropological evidences that same sex ties were considered dignified enough in Indian culture. Erotic carvings in Khajuraho temples and references to Indian kings being served by boys in harem can easily be found. However, the British colonialism and Victorian morality led to making of the anti-gay laws in India. It is an irony that in July 2014, Britain has legalised gay marriages too, with the royal stamp of Queen Elizabeth II.
- Article 14 grants everybody equality before the law: Indian Constitution guarantees equality to everyone. Hence, it is not fair to treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. Section 377 is based on the assumption that any sexual activity for procreation is natural while all the other forms of sex are unnatural. However, morality has changed now. Sexual activities are not restricted to procreation anymore. Hence, criminalizing homosexuality on the basis of Section 377 is not correct.
Against Gay Sex
- It is unnatural and immoral: Homosexuality is unnatural, immoral and uncouth. It goes against the religious beliefs of India as well as natural law. ‘Sex’ in religion has traditionally been for procreation. Bible talks about Adam and Eve in ‘Genesis’ and never Adam and Steve. If we talk about allowing individuals to have their own way, one should be allowed to marry one’s siblings, cousins or pets too as all of these would be individual choices too. Legalizing homosexuality would ruin the social fabric.
- Homosexual activities give rise to other violent crimes: Studies have indicated that child molestation and paedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis. Similarly, it has been found that HIV or AIDS spreads more rapidly through homosexual relations, especially between men. It has also been known that the LGBT community members often throw around their social and financial position to exploit men and women from lower strata. Hence, India needs strict laws to rein in such ‘addictions’.
Conclusion
Homosexuality is a complex phenomenon endemic to all societies. Though homosexuals are in minority but they have always been a part of our society. Heterosexuality might be ‘common’ but it might be not be ‘normal’ for everybody. Keeping homosexuality under cover only leads to persecution, blackmailing and harassment of individuals. Hence, the same sex relationships should be legalized in India and the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Court (IPC) should be changed to bring a respite to people with different sex orientations.
Comments