377 Law in India

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Uncategorized

Moskowitz, P. (2013, December 14). India`s anti-gay verdict raises fears of historic rewinding. AlJazeera America. Excerpt from america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/14/anti-gay-ruling-inindiasparksfeelingsofhistoricalrewind.html Telegraph. (2011, July 5). “Homosexuality is a disease,” India`s health minister said. Online video clip on online history: Indian minister says homosexuality is a Western “disease.” Bedi, R (Author). Telegraph.co.uk. Excerpt from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8617425/Indian-minister-claims-homosexuality-is-Western-disease.html Vij, p.

(13 December 2013). The dubious arguments in favor of banning gay sex in India. New Yorker.com. Excerpt from www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/12/the-dubious-arguments-for-indias-gay-sex-ban.html India`s Reversal on Gay Rights [Editorial]. (2013, December 11). The New York Times. Excerpt from www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/opinion/indias-reversal-on-gay-rights.html?_r=1 & Several organizations and individuals challenged the Delhi Supreme Court`s decision before the Supreme Court. They argued that: the right to privacy does not include the right to commit a crime; The decriminalization of homosexuality would be detrimental to the institution of marriage and would encourage young people to engage in homosexual activities. The five-member Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, composed of President Dipak Misra and Judges Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Rohinton Fali Nariman, has begun to challenge the constitutionality of Article 377.

The Union Government did not comment on this issue and left it to the “wisdom of the court” to rule on Article 377. The applicants invoked the right to privacy, sexual dignity, the right to discrimination and freedom of expression to challenge the constitutionality of Article 377. After four days of hearing the applicants` pleas, the court upheld its verdict on 17 July 2018. The court delivered its verdict on September 6, 2018. [75] At sentencing, the Court overturned its own 2013 judgment on the reinstatement of Article 377 by declaring that the use of the ICC article to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional and now constituted a criminal act. [76] [77] In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime and ruled that the previous law was “irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible.” [78] [79] Does section 377 violate the right to autonomy and dignity under section 21 by punishing consensual private acts between persons of the same sex? July 2018: A panel of five Members of the Supreme Court, including Presiding Judge Dipak Misra, begins hearing motions filed by Johar and others against Article 377. While supporters of the law cite the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the disintegration of India`s social fabric as reasons to keep it, many judges are making encouraging comments. “It`s not an aberration, it`s a variation,” said Judge Indu Malhotra.

Shortly after the decision, Sonia Gandhi, president of the then ruling Congress party, called on parliament to abolish Article 377. His son and Congress Party vice-chairman Rahul Gandhi also wanted Article 377 to support gay rights. [69] In July 2014, The Minister of State for the Interior, Kiren Rijiju, of the BJP-led central government, informed the Lok Sabha in a written response that a decision on Article 377 of the ICC can only be made after the Supreme Court has rendered its judgment. [70] On the 13th. In January 2015, BJP spokeswoman Shaina NC told NDTV: “We [bjp] are in favour of decriminalising homosexuality. This is the progressive way forward. [71] On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right of the Constitution in the landmark Puttaswamy decision. The Court also called for equality and condemned discrimination, noting that the protection of sexual orientation is at the heart of fundamental rights and that the rights of the LGBT population are real and based on constitutional doctrine. [15] It was believed that this judgment implied the unconstitutionality of section 377. [16] [17] [18] On January 5, 2018, the Supreme Court established a Constitutional Chamber to hear the challenge to Section 377 in its entirety, even though the claims for healing were pending in court. This could be due to observations made in the decision with nine judges in the Privacy Rights case, who indicated the inherent falsity of the reasoning and decision in suresh Kushal.

The five members of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Judge A.M. Khanwilkar, Judge D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra heard the case as of July 10, 2018. The leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Subramanian Swamy, said that homosexuality is not a normal thing and is against Hindutva. [41] He went on to say that this was “a threat to our national security” and that the government should invest in medical research to see if homosexuality can be cured. He added that “there is a lot of money behind it. Americans want to open gay bars, and that will be a cover for pedophiles and a huge increase in HIV cases. [42]. Intervener: vote against Rule 377; 13 Psychiatrists Although section 377 does not explicitly include the word homosexual, it has been used to track homosexual activity.

The provision was introduced in 1862 by the Raj authorities as Article 377 of the Indian Penal Code and acted as a legal impetus for the criminalization of so-called “unnatural crimes” in the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number. [4] [5] [1] The Delhi Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that Section 377 cannot be used to punish sexual relations between two consenting adults – violating the right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that the classification and the fight against homosexuals violated the guarantee of equality provided for in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 377 therefore violates human dignity, which is at the heart of the Indian Constitution. Finally, in a landmark decision of July 2, 2009, the Delhi Supreme Court struck down the 150-year-old article[62] that legalized consensual homosexual activity between adults. [63] The core of the article violates the fundamental right of individuals, the Supreme Court said in striking it down. In a 105-page decision, a bank of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Judge S. Muralidhar said Article 377 of the ICC, if not amended, would violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunities for life and is equal before the law.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which illegally punished and imprisoned sexual conduct “against the order of nature,” served as a model for similar laws throughout the British colonial empire. Therefore, its decline has been a significant step forward in the recognition and promotion of the human rights of LGBTIQ people not only in India, but around the world. The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi Supreme Court`s 2013 decision in the Suresh Kushal case, ruling that the decision on decriminalizing homosexuality can only be made by parliament and not by the court. He also concluded that section 377 criminalizes certain actions rather than a specific class of persons.