 |
21 Oct 2008, 0200 hrs IST,TNN |
NEW DELHI: Irritated by the government's contradictory and unscientific stand on the issue of homosexuality, the Delhi High Court on Monday told the government that the homosexual trait in a human being cannot be termed as a "disease" and objected to the contention that if legalised, homosexuality would bring "devastation" to society.
"Show us one report which says that it is a disease. A WHO paper says that it is not a disease but you are describing it as a disease. It is an accepted fact that it is a main vehicle that causes (AIDS) disease but it is not a disease in itself," a Bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah remarked in response to Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra's harping on the point that homosexuality was a disease that is responsible for the spread of AIDS in the country.
"AIDS is already spreading in the country and if gay sex is legalised then people on the street would start indulging in such practises saying that the High Court has given approval for it. Legalising it would send a wrong message to our youth," Malhotra maintained, at which HC took strong exception and said the matter (pertaining to legalising gay sex) was still under consideration and the Centre should not make such a submission.
The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by gay rights activists seeking decriminalisation of gay sex among consenting adults which, at present, is an offence. Section 377 of Indian Penal Code provides a punishment upto life imprisonment for indulging in gay sex.
Continuing with its opposition the government described homosexuality as "a most indecent behaviour" in society, pointing out that homosexuals comprise just 0.3% of the population and the interest of rest 99.7% population "cannot be compromised" just to accommodate their rights.
"Every citizen has the right to lead a decent and moral life in society and the right would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised in the country," Malhotra said arguing that an amendment in section 377 would mean subsequent tinkering around with marriage and divorce laws of each community as all have sodomy as a ground for divorce. The ASG claimed even section 375, which pertains to rape, would need an amendment to change definition of "consent" if homosexuality was legalised.
"Our constitution does not talk about sexual orientation. We cannot impose other countries' constitutions on us. Our moral and ethical values are different," the ASG said while concluding Centre's arguments.
Meanwhile, an independent party in the PIL, B P Singhal, who is opposing decriminalisation of gay sex started his arguments and described homosexuality as an "evil" exported from western countries.
"If the court allows such acts then it would lead to male prostitution and the epidemic of AIDS would further spread. We would no longer be a country called India if Section 377 is removed and such behaviour (gay sex) is allowed," Advocate H V Sharma appearing for the political leader said.
The Court, however, instructed him to "stick" to legal issues involved in the case and not raise political ones. Earlier, gay rights activists had contended that the government, by not decriminalising homosexuality, was infringing upon their fundamental right to equality on grounds of morality.
"Show us one report which says that it is a disease. A WHO paper says that it is not a disease but you are describing it as a disease. It is an accepted fact that it is a main vehicle that causes (AIDS) disease but it is not a disease in itself," a Bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah remarked in response to Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra's harping on the point that homosexuality was a disease that is responsible for the spread of AIDS in the country.
"AIDS is already spreading in the country and if gay sex is legalised then people on the street would start indulging in such practises saying that the High Court has given approval for it. Legalising it would send a wrong message to our youth," Malhotra maintained, at which HC took strong exception and said the matter (pertaining to legalising gay sex) was still under consideration and the Centre should not make such a submission.
The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by gay rights activists seeking decriminalisation of gay sex among consenting adults which, at present, is an offence. Section 377 of Indian Penal Code provides a punishment upto life imprisonment for indulging in gay sex.
Continuing with its opposition the government described homosexuality as "a most indecent behaviour" in society, pointing out that homosexuals comprise just 0.3% of the population and the interest of rest 99.7% population "cannot be compromised" just to accommodate their rights.
"Every citizen has the right to lead a decent and moral life in society and the right would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised in the country," Malhotra said arguing that an amendment in section 377 would mean subsequent tinkering around with marriage and divorce laws of each community as all have sodomy as a ground for divorce. The ASG claimed even section 375, which pertains to rape, would need an amendment to change definition of "consent" if homosexuality was legalised.
"Our constitution does not talk about sexual orientation. We cannot impose other countries' constitutions on us. Our moral and ethical values are different," the ASG said while concluding Centre's arguments.
Meanwhile, an independent party in the PIL, B P Singhal, who is opposing decriminalisation of gay sex started his arguments and described homosexuality as an "evil" exported from western countries.
"If the court allows such acts then it would lead to male prostitution and the epidemic of AIDS would further spread. We would no longer be a country called India if Section 377 is removed and such behaviour (gay sex) is allowed," Advocate H V Sharma appearing for the political leader said.
The Court, however, instructed him to "stick" to legal issues involved in the case and not raise political ones. Earlier, gay rights activists had contended that the government, by not decriminalising homosexuality, was infringing upon their fundamental right to equality on grounds of morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment