[QODLink]
South Asia

Indian top court says gay sex is an offence

Supreme Court upholds law criminalising gay sex, setting aside lower court decision legalising homosexuality.

Last updated: 11 Dec 2013 18:32
Email Article
Print Article
Share article
Send Feedback

India's Supreme Court has upheld a law criminalising gay sex, setting aside a landmark lower court decision in 2009 which had overturned the colonial-era ban on homosexuality.

The court on Wednesday held that an homosexual act was punishable under Section 377 of the Indian penal code, reports quoting the judgement said.

Spotlight
Follow our special India coverage

A bench of justice G S Singhvi and justice SJ Mukhopadhaya delivered the verdict after hearing petitions of  anti-gay right activists besides social and religious organisations against the earlier Delhi high court order of  2009.

The top court came down heavily on the federal government describing its approach as “casual” and said it was concerned that the Indian parliament had not thought fit to discuss the issue.

'Tolerant Indian society'

The federal government had welcomed the ruling of the earlier Delhi High court on the grounds that the section 377 of the Indian penal code was a relic of the British colonial law and that Indian society was much more tolerant towards homosexuality, reports said.

The Delhi high court on July 2, 2009, had ruled that sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.

Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC makes gay sex a criminal offence, and can result in imprisonment for life.

Senior BJP politician BP Singhal, who died in October 2012, was among those who had challenged the high court verdict on the grounds that such acts were “illegal, immoral and against the ethos of Indian culture”, the reports said.

Others who challenged the high court judgment included the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance.

Dismay

Gay activists reacted with dismay and anger at the apex court verdict. Anand Grover, the counsel for Naz Foundation which was the original petitioner in the high court, was quoted as saying they were disappointed with the verdict. Stating it was not correct in law, he said they would appeal for a review of the judgment. 

Popular historian Ramachandra Guha tweeted that the verdict was a step backward towards "barbarism and medievalism".

361

Source:
Al Jazeera
Email Article
Print Article
Share article
Send Feedback
Topics in this article
People
Country
Organisation
Featured on Al Jazeera
An innovative rehabilitation programme offers Danish fighters in Syria an escape route and help without prosecution.
Street tension between radical Muslims and Holland's hard right rises, as Islamic State anxiety grows.
Take an immersive look at the challenges facing the war-torn country as US troops begin their withdrawal.
Ministers and MPs caught on camera sleeping through important speeches have sparked criticism that they are not working.

Featured
Spirits are high in Scotland's 'Whisky Capital of the World' with one distillery thirsty for independence.
President Poroshenko arrives in Washington on Thursday with money and military aid on his mind, analysts say.
Early players in private medicine often focused on volume over quality, turning many Chinese off for-profit care.
Al Jazeera asked people across Scotland what they think about the prospect of splitting from the United Kingdom.
Blogger critical of a lack of government transparency faces defamation lawsuit from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
join our mailing list