The Law Commission of India had already sought the opinion of experts from all state governments but a majority of states, including Uttar Pradesh, have registered their reservation over amending the laws against rape. They also opposed deletion of Section 377 of IPC, which prohibited unnatural sex, claiming it would not only spread ‘gay culture’ in the country but would also give the liberty to everyone to indulge in ‘unnatural sex’.

Homosexuals as well as NGOs in support of the right to homosexuality termed Section 377 of the IPC as ‘archival’ and were making efforts to get the provisions abolished. Sources said that the Law Commission of India in its 172nd report on ‘Review of Laws against Rape’ recommended changes in order to widen its scope. Considering the opinion of some social activists that not only women but young boys (under the age of 16) were

increasingly being subjected to forced sexual assaults that resulted in trauma and psychological damage, the Commission recommended substitution of the of the term ‘rape’ with ‘sexual assault’ and also recommonded that it be made gender-neutral.

However, what is a cause for serious concern is the fact that both the Delhi HC and the Law Commission had advocated deletion of Section 377 IPC (unnatural sex) claiming that they added a new Section 376(E) to the IPC. But if one goes by the report, the commission not only deleted the word ‘unnatural sex’ but also mentioned that action would be taken only if the crime was made against the will or consent of a person. It may be mentioned here that in Section 377, any act of unnatural sex is punishable under the law, whether it is done with consent or not. However, if the recommendations of the the commission are accepted, then anything done by consent of person is permissible, which will ultimately promote homosexuality, especially the ‘gay culture’.

Surprisingly, in its letter to state governments seeking their opinion on the issue, the commission claimed that they covered all aspects of Section 377 IPC in Section 376(E) IPC and that the content which remained related to voluntary carnal intercourse with animals. 

However, the truth is contrary to the commissions' claims.