GAY SEX Vs
MORAL VALUES - COURT INTERPRETATION
The Division
Bench of the High Court extensively considered the contentions of the parties
and declared that Section 377, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual
acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the
Constitution. While dealing with the
question relating to violation of Article 21, the High Court outlined the
enlarged scope of the right to life and liberty which also includes right to
protection of one’s dignity, autonomy and privacy, the Division Bench referred
to Indian and foreign judgements, the literature and international
understanding (Yogyakarta Principles) relating to sexuality as a form of
identity and the global trends in the protection of privacy and dignity rights
of homosexuals and held:
“The
sphere of privacy allows persons to develop human relations without
interference from the outside community or from the State. The exercise of
autonomy enables an individual to attain fulfilment, grow in self-esteem, build
relationships of his or her choice and fulfil all legitimate goals that he or
she may set. In the Indian Constitution, the right to live with dignity and the
right of privacy both are recognised as dimensions of Article 21. Section 377
IPC denies a person's dignity and criminalises his or her core identity solely
on account of his or her sexuality and thus violates Article 21 of the
Constitution. As it stands, Section 377 IPC denies a gay person a right to full
personhood which is implicit in notion of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The
criminalisation of homosexuality condemns in perpetuity a sizable section of
society and forces them to live their lives in the shadow of harassment,
exploitation, humiliation, cruel and degrading treatment at the hands of the
law enforcement machinery. The Government of India estimates the MSM number at
around 25 lacs.
The
number of lesbians and transgender is said to be several lacs as well. This
vast majority (borrowing the language of the South African Constitutional
Court) is denied “moral full citizenship”. Section 377 IPC grossly violates
their right to privacy and liberty embodied in Article 21 insofar as it
criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private. These
fundamental rights had their roots deep in the struggle for independence and,
as pointed out by Granville Austin in “The Indian Constitution – Cornerstone of
A Nation”, “they were included in the Constitution in the hope and expectation
that one day the tree of true liberty would bloom in India”. In the words of
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer these rights are cardinal to a decent human order and
protected by constitutional armour. The spirit of Man is at the root of Article
21, absent liberty, other freedoms are frozen.
A
number of documents, affidavits and authoritative reports of independent
agencies and even judgments of various courts have been brought on record to
demonstrate the widespread abuse of Section 377 IPC for brutalizing MSM and gay
community persons, some of them of very recent vintage. If the penal clause is
not being enforced against homosexuals engaged in consensual acts within
privacy, it only implies that this provision is not deemed essential for the
protection of morals or public health vis-a-vis said section of society. The
provision, from this perspective, should fail the “reasonableness” test.”
Sources:
The Supreme Court Judgement in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10972 OF 2013 and Photo sources is twitter.com
No comments:
Post a Comment