Posted in Fundamental Rights

Homosexuals Too Have Rights – They are not demanding something ADDITIONAL!

We often say that there is gender inequality amongst men and women and that’s true. But what about the third gender that has been given a due recognition by Supreme Court of India[1]. This so called third gender is not even accepted by majority of the people in the society, talking about its dignity, rights and so called ‘equality’ is like a fairytale!

Even after getting a legal status conferred by the Apex Court they haven’t been given their due right in many states. Although we come to read and know about some of the transgender like Zara Sheikh[2], Rudrani Chettri[3], Kalki Subramanyam[4], Madhu Kinnar[5], Manabi Bandyopadhyay[6] , Padmini Prakash[7] and 23 other transgender who have been given jobs at Kochi metro who have achieved something but what about rest of such population.

In the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation[8] the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgment that held Section 377 of Indian Penal Code unconstitutional. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted the case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India (UOI)[9] and asserted that the instead of declaring a legislative provision illegal, doctrine of Severability must be applied and valid portion must be separated from the invalid portion. So from the Supreme Court’s judgment on the rights of homosexuals and constitutionality of Section 377 it can be construed that there is a reasonable classification made on intelligible differentia that homosexuals are an exception to it (Section 377 IPC).

Despite having been given rights by Supreme Court, they aren’t getting what they too deserve. Till date it is very normal and regular to see these people begging at traffic lights, at religious places like temples, mosques, etc. Not only this they’ve to face ill-treatment by police authorities and public. This Eunush culture is present in our culture since the ancient times of Lord Rama. And, it was in that era that homosexuals were considered as the agents of GOD and gave blessing to people on pious occasions. But at present times they have to face hatred, abusive treatment, cruelty and sexual harassment[10]. Till November, 2014 thirty seven attacks have were reported against eunuchs in Hyderabad since March. Shockingly there were around 10 deaths, three gang rapes and five acid attacks[11].

The Hon’ble Court has left it on the competent legislature to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General[12].

But this does not end here only!

Despite the verdicts of Supreme Court this community is being harassed, blackmailed and tortured because of their genetic disorder and make them feel ashamed and embarrassed about their identities. This clearly implies that States are not able to comply with the orders of Supreme Court by not being able to providing its citizens their precious fundamental rights.

[1] National legal services authority v. UOI [WRIT PETITIONS (CIVIL) NO.400 OF 2012 & 604 OF 2013]

[2] India’s first transgender HR Professional in a MNC

[3] Delhi-based transgender activist and head of Mitr Trust, opened a modelling agency to help transgender models get work and recognition

[4] activist and author, established Sahodari Foundation that works for the empowerment of transgender persons in India

[5]  she fought mayoral elections in Raigarh, Chhattisgarh as an independent candidate and won

[6]  India’s first transgender principal a year ago

[7]  India’s first transgender TV anchor with a prime time show on a South Indian TV channel

[8] CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013

[9] AIR 1957 SC 628

[10] Jayalakshmi v. State, (2007) 4 MLJ 849


[12] Suresh Kumar Koushal Case, supra




Tesu Gupta is a third-year B.A.LLB(H) student of Jagan Nath University, Haryana. She has participated in many moot court competitions and paper presentations. Passionate about law and legal research, her area of interest is Arbitration. She has won the intra-university moot court competition and received the ‘Best Presenter’ award.


Posted in Criminal Law

Section 377: A redundant mindset

This article has been written by Raina Mahapatra. Raina is currently pursuing her undergraduate course from Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

In a 23 against 18 vote (6 abstentions) in June 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution creating a post of an independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity. This expert, once officially appointed, will be tasked with the job of studying and reporting annually on the nature, cause and extent of discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons around the world. In many ways, the establishment of the new post exemplifies a growing global trend towards addressing the numerous instances of human rights violations suffered by LGBT persons. It thus came as a matter of grave shame when India, in a manner so unbecoming of its celebrated progressive culture, abstained from voting on the matter.

It must be kept in mind that India’s abstention in this principal vote is nowhere near a display of neutrality. Abstention as a tool, which is supposed to be used in matters to establish indecisiveness or disinterest in a subject, was misused as a subtle weapon of deception aimed at furthering the reach of a law that is decidedly intolerant and casually insensitive of equal human rights that are basic to one’s pride and dignity in a civilised society.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

In a landmark judgment in July 2009, the Delhi High Court in all its progressive glory, recognised the inherent injustice in Section 377  and struck it down, holding it violative of the Right to life, liberty and equality as provided in the Constitution of India. However, four years later, in a disappointing display of conservative mindset that feeds regression, the Supreme Court reversed this finding. The infamous case of ‘Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation’ saw the apex court doggedly refusing an equal status to our citizenry. Instead, the court restored Section 377 to its archaic ingloriousness, granting validity to the state’s process to criminalise any acts of homosexual intimacy.

A closer evaluation of the judgment delivered provides no legal basis for the validity of such a law and it is merely the mindset of a few covered in a vague shroud of morality. American philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that the Supreme Court’s verdict shows an almost pathological emotion of disgust towards homosexuality even when such acts cause no actual harm to any part of the society whatsoever.

What’s more, since the judgment in Koushal, there has been a rise not only in homophobia but also in instances of an abuse of the process of law contained in Section 377. Simultaneously, there have been repeated efforts made by the present ruling dispensation to further penetrate the law’s deeply damaging effects. At least two private member’s bills moved in the Lok Sabha by Shashi Tharoor, which sought decriminalisation of homosexuality were met with predictably wicked defeats. It is also demoralising that although the referral to a Constitution Bench of the curative petitions offers a glimmer of hope, the chances of their success, given the court’s usually guarded approach to such challenges, are terrifyingly slim.

Arguments against homosexuality find their basis in the premise that it is against natural law, which lays down guidelines for civil and sexual unions between a male and female only. Embracing homosexuality translates to converting a moral wrong into a civil right and as a result, what is produced is a sterile union as opposed to a family. The incredulous claim of fundamentalists that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ despite preponderance of evidence regarding how one’s sexuality is purely biological is a blatant disregard of science and common civic sense. Similarly, homosexuality isn’t merely a set of behaviours; it is a person’s identity, one he should be able to choose freely and without any fear of repercussions. An important argument put forth is that decriminalisation of Section 377 imposes its acceptance on all of society. The sardonic irony in this argument doesn’t even deserve clarification.

It is undeniable that a society’s moral judgment must play some role in determining the extent of its criminal laws. However, as the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin once wrote, “a conscientious legislator who is told a moral consensus exists must test the credentials of that consensus.” The community’s moral standards thus cannot be arbitrarily gleaned nor can it be a product of inexplicable revulsion and disgust. In the case of Section 377, any reasonable analysis would show us that to regard homosexual activity as somehow immoral violates the innate natural autonomy that every person has over his or her respective sexuality. Justice Singhvi’s judgment is predicated on a bizarre belief that the only point of democracy is to accept the majority’s verdict. But democracy demands much more than the mere enforcement of majority will. It requires a fearless commitment to equality and justified protection of minority rights.

The debate right now, thus, isn’t about the technicality of the law and how it doesn’t hold any reservations against homosexuality but merely against carnal intercourse. The real question remains the blatant audacity of the judiciary system to hide behind the veil of such a minute technical excuse after upholding the orthodox and unimaginative mindset that criminalises a way of life, something that a person has absolutely no control over; something that is imperative to his Right to Life, Liberty and Equality.

The December book bucket

court-room-genius                    Learning the law.jpg                     legal-eagles