The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to reconsider its decision to recriminalise homosexuality. Several petitioners had asked the Supreme Court to review its verdict on December 11 setting aside a ruling by the Delhi High Court in 2009 reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes homosexuality and other "unnatural offences" illegal.
Homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment.
Eight review petitions had been filed urging the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on grounds of material errors of fact and law as well as in the interests of justice. “We have gone through the review petitions and the connected papers," said Justice HL Dattu and Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhyay. "We see no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”
Here are some of the arguments in which the Supreme Court found no merit.
1) Section 377 falls foul of the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.
This was one of the 76 reasons cited by the Union of India for why the Supreme Court verdict is unconstitutional. It also argued that the Court should not have "ignored the fact that the Union of India had made a considered decision not to challenge the High Court decision and had accepted the verdict that Section 377 was unconstitutional".
2) ‘The Constitution protects privacy within the realm of personal liberty of all persons.’
Naz Foundation, which had set the ball rolling by asking the Delhi High Court to read down Section 377, said that "penile-anal and penile-oral sex, Section 377 violates the right to privacy of all protected under Article 21, including the right to form intimate and sexual relationships between consenting adults in private, unless there is a compelling State interest".
3) Section 377 'offends the dignity' of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered 'persons as a class, makes them second class citizens and denies them full moral citizenship'.
Voices Against 377, a coalition of child rights, women's rights and LGBT groups, said, "The great question before this Court was whether LGBT persons may be criminalised merely for being who they are. Though facially neutral, Section 377 in its interpretation, operation and working targets LGBT persons."
4) 'The sexual acts criminalised under Section 377 were practised by vast sections of the Indian population’.
Though the Supreme Court verdict in December recriminalising homosexuality claimed that only "a miniscule fraction of the country’s population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders", eminent filmmaker Shyam Benegal's petition said that this was disproved by data from sex surveys produced before the court.
5) There is medical consensus around the fact that ‘homosexuality was not a mental disorder but a normal and natural variant of human sexuality’.
Dr. Shekhar Seshadri, Dr. Alok Sarin, Dr. Vikram Patel and 10 other senior psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors and mental health professionals argued that the judgment should be reviewed because "scientific consensus was that, homosexuality was innate and immutable; persons did not choose to become homosexual; the criminalization of homosexuality was therefore akin to criminalizing persons on the basis of their skin colour, the colour of their eyes, their race, or ethnic origin".
Opponents of Section 377 say they will now file a curative petition seeking a review of the Supreme Court's decision.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment.
Eight review petitions had been filed urging the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on grounds of material errors of fact and law as well as in the interests of justice. “We have gone through the review petitions and the connected papers," said Justice HL Dattu and Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhyay. "We see no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”
Here are some of the arguments in which the Supreme Court found no merit.
1) Section 377 falls foul of the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.
This was one of the 76 reasons cited by the Union of India for why the Supreme Court verdict is unconstitutional. It also argued that the Court should not have "ignored the fact that the Union of India had made a considered decision not to challenge the High Court decision and had accepted the verdict that Section 377 was unconstitutional".
2) ‘The Constitution protects privacy within the realm of personal liberty of all persons.’
Naz Foundation, which had set the ball rolling by asking the Delhi High Court to read down Section 377, said that "penile-anal and penile-oral sex, Section 377 violates the right to privacy of all protected under Article 21, including the right to form intimate and sexual relationships between consenting adults in private, unless there is a compelling State interest".
3) Section 377 'offends the dignity' of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered 'persons as a class, makes them second class citizens and denies them full moral citizenship'.
Voices Against 377, a coalition of child rights, women's rights and LGBT groups, said, "The great question before this Court was whether LGBT persons may be criminalised merely for being who they are. Though facially neutral, Section 377 in its interpretation, operation and working targets LGBT persons."
4) 'The sexual acts criminalised under Section 377 were practised by vast sections of the Indian population’.
Though the Supreme Court verdict in December recriminalising homosexuality claimed that only "a miniscule fraction of the country’s population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders", eminent filmmaker Shyam Benegal's petition said that this was disproved by data from sex surveys produced before the court.
5) There is medical consensus around the fact that ‘homosexuality was not a mental disorder but a normal and natural variant of human sexuality’.
Dr. Shekhar Seshadri, Dr. Alok Sarin, Dr. Vikram Patel and 10 other senior psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors and mental health professionals argued that the judgment should be reviewed because "scientific consensus was that, homosexuality was innate and immutable; persons did not choose to become homosexual; the criminalization of homosexuality was therefore akin to criminalizing persons on the basis of their skin colour, the colour of their eyes, their race, or ethnic origin".
Opponents of Section 377 say they will now file a curative petition seeking a review of the Supreme Court's decision.