Centre backs court ruling on Sec 377
The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the HC order need not be stayed as it was limited to consensual adults having sex in private. The Attorney General hinted this was the direction in which the Centre was 'reconsidering' its stand.
BREAKING ITS silence on the controversial Delhi High Court decision decriminalising homosexuality, the Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the HC order need not be stayed as it was limited to consensual adults having sex in private. Hinting this to be the direction in which the Centre was ‘reconsidering’ its stand, Attorney General GE Vahanvati said, “We want to reconsider our stand before the HC. It has not quashed Section 377 (of IPC) but read it down by permitting consensual sex between adults in private.”
He further cleared the air over concerns raised by petitioner Suresh Kumar Kaushal, on whether the decision would render legitimacy to gay marriages. Vahanvati said, “There should not be any stay of the HC judgement. The law as it exists today recognises marriage between a bride and a bridegroom and not between a bridegroom and bridegroom or between a bride and a bride” - a statement which evoked laughter from lawyers assembled in the crowded courtroom.
Accompanied by Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, the Attorney General told the Court that the matter should be adjourned since the Centre would require time to arrive at a consensus on this issue. The Bench of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam, posted the matter for hearing after eight weeks. The petitioner, an astrologist, represented by his counsel Pravin Agarwal, had contested the Centre’s silence on what he referred to as an issue of national importance. Pointing out the pitfalls in the High Court order, he suggested that the order could open the floodgates for several illegal acts to be performed under the guise of consensual acts.
Joining him was another advocate, Harshvir Singh, who argued that consent to an unlawful act, was not consent. Referring to the dichotomy created by the order, he said, “Man-woman sex is still illegal but male-male sex is legal," referring to the fact that prostitution still remains illegal while homosexual acts are legal. The petitioners demanded a stay on the HC decision, but the bench was not impressed. Noting its constraint, the bench said, "Suppose there was a threat of filing criminal cases or not filing criminal cases, we could have considered grant of interim relief. But here, let the government take a stand. We will hear them.”
Responding to the contentions of the petitioners, the NGO Naz Foundation, on whose petition the HC passed the order, stated that the cases under Section 377, were not enforced against gays or lesbians but against paedophiles. But the bench came to the defence of the petitioner, stating that any person could move the court as this matter concerned the public at large.
Accompanied by Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, the Attorney General told the Court that the matter should be adjourned since the Centre would require time to arrive at a consensus on this issue. The Bench of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam, posted the matter for hearing after eight weeks. The petitioner, an astrologist, represented by his counsel Pravin Agarwal, had contested the Centre’s silence on what he referred to as an issue of national importance. Pointing out the pitfalls in the High Court order, he suggested that the order could open the floodgates for several illegal acts to be performed under the guise of consensual acts.
Joining him was another advocate, Harshvir Singh, who argued that consent to an unlawful act, was not consent. Referring to the dichotomy created by the order, he said, “Man-woman sex is still illegal but male-male sex is legal," referring to the fact that prostitution still remains illegal while homosexual acts are legal. The petitioners demanded a stay on the HC decision, but the bench was not impressed. Noting its constraint, the bench said, "Suppose there was a threat of filing criminal cases or not filing criminal cases, we could have considered grant of interim relief. But here, let the government take a stand. We will hear them.”
Responding to the contentions of the petitioners, the NGO Naz Foundation, on whose petition the HC passed the order, stated that the cases under Section 377, were not enforced against gays or lesbians but against paedophiles. But the bench came to the defence of the petitioner, stating that any person could move the court as this matter concerned the public at large.
 | Previous Post |
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
