“If people can choose their orientation, tomorrow someone will say, ‘My orientation is that of a thief’. His assertions drew loud gasps from the packed court-room, which included a number of people from the LGBTQ community. “Homosexuality and vegetative reproduction is only applicable to lower class of animals,” said lawyer Rajesh Aggarwal, arguing for one Rajainderr Jaina, objecting to the de-criminalisation. The judges asked many of them to clarify if they had filed their submissions officially and some had not.
It was not clear who these lawyers were or who they were representing. New intervenors as prejudiced as the CentreĪfter the elevated arguments in court on Wednesday – about the arbitrariness and disproportionality of Section 377, the inequality and fear it has perpetuated, the fact that it is a colonial law whose ‘presumed-constitutionality’ would have to be debated – some of the arguments the court heard on Thursday were of questionable merit and taste. Yet, while leaving it to the wisdom of the court, the ASG’s verbal assertions have been of this nature – speaking about LGBTQ sexuality in the same breath as bestiality and incest. The government has chosen to not file any substantive response to the six petitions before the court, and has instead put on record that it “would leave the said question to the wisdom of this Honourable Court.” The Centre’s understanding of the issue is not surprising to observers given that it has chosen to not take an explicit position towards LGBTQ rights, either of support or of opposition. We want that two gay men holding hands and walking down marine drive are not arrestedĪSG Tushar Mehta says wont contest provision as regards consensual sex between adults and leaving it to the Bench, but seeks clarification on bestiality. J DYC shoots back- we are not considering kinks in sexual behaviour. Chandrachud who repeated for him the very brief of the case – that the court was hearing the matter of de-criminalising sexual expression between two consenting adults, and not indeed, between humans and animals or between adults and children.Ĭenter tells #SC it’s up to court to take decision on #s377 ASG says “perversions” like incest, bestiality not be allowed. “Tomorrow if someone comes with bestiality and says ‘this is my choice of partner’…” said Mehta. I think Justice Chandrachud got what I am saying… This is my apprehension.” he said to the judges.
“To choose partners means, what happens to perversions like incest….
The Union of India is worried about bestiality and incestįor example, on the second day of arguments, Tushar Mehta, additional solicitor general for the Union of India, expressed apprehensions that allowing people to choose their partners may have an impact on bestiality or incest.
While the petitioners have been arguing for the de-criminalisation of Section 377, hoping it will be a gateway to further civil rights – as The Wire has reported – the government and those supporting Section 377 appear to think de-criminalisation will be a gateway for “perversion”. While these lawyers showed up on the third day, the government, from the very first day, has also been apprehensive about some of the same issues – though not as vocally. They all wanted to address the judges about what manner of “perversions” could surface if the court agreed to let adult Indians express their sexuality, choose their sexual partners and choose their manner of sex. They brought petitions and petitioners and claimed to want to intervene in the ongoing proceedings on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, with opposing arguments. New Delhi: A motley crew of lawyers arrived post-lunch at the Supreme Court on Thursday.