Supreme
court to re-examine legislation activists say is used to blackmail LGBTI
Indians and block HIV and Aids initiatives
The Guardian, Michael Safi , Mon 8 Jan 2018
India may be on track for a major victory for gay rights after the supreme court agreed to re-examine a colonial-era law outlawing sex between men.
![]() |
| Activists on a gay pride parade in Delhi in November. Section 377 of the penal code bans homosexual intercourse. Photograph: AP |
India may be on track for a major victory for gay rights after the supreme court agreed to re-examine a colonial-era law outlawing sex between men.
The court
said on Monday that it would refer the question of the validity of section 377
of the Indian penal code to a larger bench for examination before October.
Section
377, modelled on a 16th-century British law, bans “carnal intercourse against
the order of nature with any man, woman or animal”, and is punishable by life
imprisonment.
About 1,347
cases were registered in 2015, most in regards to alleged sexual offences
against children.
The supreme
court observed in 2013 that fewer than 200 people had been convicted of
homosexual acts under the legislation, but activists claim it is regularly used
to blackmail and intimidate LBGTI Indians, and stymie HIV/Aids prevention
efforts.
Harish
Iyer, an activist, said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the court would
scrap the 150-year-old law. Another LBGTI advocate, Aditya Bondyopadhyay, said
the court had already signalled an intention to hear challenges to section 377,
“but at least now we know when it is going to happen, we have a date”.
A
three-judge bench of the court was responding to a case lodged by gay activists
arguing that the ban had put them at constant risk of arrest. “A section of
people or individuals who exercise their choice should never remain in a state
of fear,” the justices said.
“Choice
can’t be allowed to cross boundaries of law, but confines of law can’t trample
or curtail the inherent right embedded in an individual under article 21 of
[the] constitution.”
Article 21
of the Indian constitution says: “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
The ban on
gay sex was overturned by the Delhi high court in 2009, but reinstated by the
supreme court four years later in a judgment that drew widespread condemnation,
including from the UN.
The law was
thought to be vulnerable to legal challenge since a landmark judgment in
September, which recognised that article 21 guaranteed a right to privacy.
Several supreme court judges noted that sexual orientation fell under the
privacy umbrella.
Anand
Grover, a senior lawyer who argued the case that initially overturned the law,
said the latest challenge had “no choice but to succeed”.
Bondyopadhyay
said it was clear the court had been increasingly bothered by its earlier
judgment upholding the ban and was looking for an opportunity to correct it.
“There has
been so much criticism of the judgment, and mobilisation on the ground and
acceptance levels have gone up by a lot, [despite] the conservative forces in
the ruling party,” he said.
The ruling
Bharatiya Janata party is seen as generally hostile to gay rights, while
Congress, India’s main opposition party, placed the overturning of section 377
in its most recent election manifesto.
But with
the exception of one MP, Shashi Tharoor, the party was unwilling to burn
political capital on the issue, Bondyopadhyay said.
India
remains a conservative society, but the visibility of LBGTI Indians has grown
in the two decades since the first gay pride parade attracted a few dozen
marchers in Kolkata in 1999.
LBGTI
scenes quietly thrive across the country, though some gay dating apps still
flash with warnings that users may be committing criminal acts punishable by a
life sentence.
A
comprehensive survey of young Indians by the Centre for the Study of Developing
Societies last year found 61% regarded homosexual “acts” as wrong. Respondents
aged 15-17 were most accepting, while contrary to trends elsewhere, young
Indians in villages were more accepting (29%) than their counterparts in big
cities (21%).
Prominent
Hindu spiritual gurus such as the retail and yoga magnate Baba Ramdev are vocal
opponents of homosexuality, but Iyer said the majority religion in India had no
official injunction against it.
Some
scholars have argued that Hindu scriptures and epics repeatedly reference,
though do not necessarily endorse, same-sex intercourse, and comfortably
accommodate the idea of people transitioning gender.
“I think
respect for homosexuality is part of Indian culture and homophobia is a western
import,” Iyer said. “I am fighting for the right to be Indian, to love
everyone.”

No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.