|
Hyderabad, July, 3 : Broad sections of society,
including religious leaders, political parties, the legal fraternity
and others reacted with caution, shock and disappointment over the
Delhi High Court’s judgement legalising gay sex among consenting
adults. The court held that the Section 377 of the IPC, insofar
making consensual gay sex illegal was violative of provisions of
the Constitution.
First a short primer. Section 377 was a British era law brought
in by Lord Macaulay that criminalised homosexual acts by terming
them ‘unnatural’. Gay rights activists and members of
the LGBT community (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders)
have fought a legal battle for eight years to repeal the section.
Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson, N Ramachandra Rao, said that
his party opposed the judgement.
“Unnatural sexual offences cannot be given legal sanctity
and this judgement cannot be justified,” he said. He added
that what was happening in the Western world could not be allowed
to to be ‘transmitted’ to India. When asked if it could
be justified through the discourse of human rights Ramachandra Rao
responded that “Human rights cannot be for pleasure”.
“Article 377 has to be retained,” he concluded.
A lot of the opposition has been grounded on supposed difference
between Indian and Western culture.
Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Muslimeen president, Asaduddin Owaisi says that
the judgement is unacceptable from the point of view of ‘our
culture’.
“Indian society is largely conservative and these things are
alien to our great culture,” he said. He also opposed the judgement
because, “Islam does not permit such unnatural acts”.
He added that the moral and social fabric of Western society had
decayed because of things like gay marriages. Asaduddin Owaisi said,
“Though the court has passed a judgement favouring homosexuality
we wonder why the same liberalism is not shown when it comes to
Muslim issues like reservation of jobs and seats in education institutions,”
he queried.
Lok Satta Party’s spokesperson, K Srinivasa Rao also said
that homosexuality was not “in our tradition and is not in
our culture”. “We are against it,” he said.
Meanwhile, the legal fraternity is being cautious. A well known
High Court advocate said that the ball was now in the Union Government’s
court.
“Depending on their stand, they may file an appeal in the
Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgement,”
he said.
Senior Telugu Desam Party leader Yannamalla Ramakrishnudu reacted
cautiously and adopted a ‘wait and watch’ stance. “It
is upto the Union government whether they accept the judgement or
decide to appeal,” he said.
He refused to comment further pleading that he had not seen the
judgement copy. But he added that the Government of India has to
act since the ‘cultural sensibilities will be hurt’.
On the other hand, noted Dalit rights activist Kancha Ilaiah felt
that the law should not interfere with basic natural rights, of
which sexual freedom was a part. “But it has some social implications.
Curtailment of such unnatural acts should be left to social training
instead,” he said.
|
