Debate on IPC Section 377
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: December 16, 2013 -

A lot has already been said; a lot more are being said and still a lot more can and will be said.

This is how we look at the reaction that the Supreme Court ruling on reinstating ban on homosexuality under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), a piece of legislation that dates back to British colonial era in India has invoked with everyone having their say on the issue today.

Setting aside the landmark Delhi High Court’s decision in 2009 to decriminalise homosexuality among the consenting adults in private, the Supreme Court of India passed an order on December 11 to reinstate the ban on gay sex. Upholding the constitutional validity of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which treats gay sex an offence punishable with upto life imprisonment, a two-judge bench of the apex court comprising Justices GS Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya also put the onus on Parliament to take a decision on issue, saying it was for the legislature to debate and decide on the matter.

The ruling of the apex court has obviously left the gay rights activists and LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender) community not only in India but also in other parts of the globe shocked and dismayed, and so their angry reaction and protest on the streets is understandable.

But what is interest to note in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement is the divide that has been created and come to fore on the issue of homosexuality in Indian society vis-a-vis the controversial Section 377 of IPC among the various political parties, religious Gurus aka Babas.

While we have nothing to comment on this political divide, which appears to be only some calculated move on the part of the political parties or on the stand of the assorted religious Gurus/Babas, some of whom even went to the extent of claiming that they can cure homosexuality(as if it some sort of disease), we do feel that gay rights activists do have a point when they say that in a free society (which India likes to project itself to the world with talks of democratic rights and civil liberties to all its citizens) what two individuals do in the privacy of their home should not be a matter of concern for anyone else as long as they are not indulging in any crime.

They also have a point when they say that the anti-gay law in the country had resulted from British colonialism, and the irony is that Britain has legalised gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval in July this year, although India has remained stuck to such an archaic piece of legislation that discriminate one group of people against another.

Moreover, when we talk about gay issue, we should not just confine to the same-sex behaviour or what is being termed as ‘sexual activity against the order of nature", but keep an open eye and mind on the larger issue of rights of gay people like their basic civil, political, social and economic rights; equality before the law; right to non-discrimination and to be free from violence, harassment, inhuman and degrading treatment, etc, which are always at stake in an exclusive society.

Most importantly, gay people are not asking for anything special or additional to the rights that other heterosexual couples are enjoying in the society.

Last but not the least, we cannot deny the fact that gays and lesbians exist around us and no legislation would be able to change their sexual preference or orientation, which is an inborn biological trait and not a choice.

Perhaps, it is time for a rethink on Section 377 of IPC, and there could not be a more opportune time than now.