[ad_1]
Article 377 verdict LATEST updates: Various investigations and medical reports have shown that sodomy in prison cells and sexual assault against men are more frequent than we would like. If the Supreme Court repeals section 377, it could even pave the way for legal redress for victims of male sexual assault, in addition to restoring the dignity and rights of same-sex couples.
The legal battle against archaic section 377 began in 1994 when human rights group Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA) filed a public interest petition in the Delhi High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the case. 377 Years later, the Supreme Court indicated that it could remove the penalty clause against consenting adults.
Four of the five judges – CJI Dipak Misra, Judges RF Nariman, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra – made separate judgments, while Judge Khanwilakar chose to agree with one of the judges.
The Supreme Court has attached importance to the consent of individuals to sexual relations and sexuality. At a previous hearing, the constitutional formation had indicated that the court would respect the notion of consent of individuals in its decision.
"We are only consensual acts between a man-man, a man-woman.Consent is the pivot here.You can not impose your sexual orientation on others without their consent," said the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will deliver its long-awaited verdict on a set of petitions calling for the decriminalization of a 158-year-old colonial law under section 377 of the CIP, which criminalizes consensual homosexual sex.
A five-judge jury chaired by Chief Justice Dipak Misra reserved his verdict on July 17 after hearing from various stakeholders for four days, including gay rights activists.
In addition to the CJI, the bench also included judges RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the courts can not wait until a "majority government" decides to promulgate, amend or rescind a law if it violates fundamental rights.
She made it clear that she did not completely repeal the law and did not treat it to the extent that it related to consensual acts between two adults.
"If Article 377 of the IPC disappears completely, there will be anarchy, we are only consensual acts between a man and a man, and consent is the pivot here. sexual orientation to others without their consent ". The high court had declared, appeasing opponents' apprehensions to the decriminalization of the penal provision.
"We would not expect the majority government to promulgate, amend or enact any law to deal with human rights violations," the court said, reserving its verdict.
Section 377 refers to "unnatural offenses" and states that anyone who has carnal sex against the order of nature with a man, woman or animal, will be punished with imprisonment. in perpetuity or years, and will also be required to pay a fine.
The Center, which initially requested an adjournment for responding to the petitions, then left the court's wisdom with the question of the legality of the criminal provision on aspects of the criminalization of unnatural sex between two consenting adults.
She stated that other aspects of the criminal provision for minors and animals should remain in the statute book.
The Supreme Court heard the petitions filed by dancer Navtej Jauhar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chief Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath and Keshav Suri and company director Ayesha Kapur and 20 current and former students of the 39; ITI. They asked for the decriminalization of consensual sexual relations between two consenting adults of the same sex by declaring that section 377 of the CPI was illegal and unconstitutional.
The issue was raised for the first time by the NGO Naaz Foundation, which in 2001 had appealed to the Delhi High Court, which had decriminalized in 2009 sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex by considering the penal provision as "illegal".
This decision of the High Court was overturned in 2013 by the Supreme Court, which also rejected the petition for review against which the curative petitions were pending.
The Supreme Court had begun hearing new motions writing charges of re-criminalizing consensual homosexual relations between two adults, rejecting the Center's plea to postpone the four-week procedure.
At the beginning of the hearing on 10 July, the five-judge panel had made it clear that it was not dealing with remedial requests and would rule on new applications for interim measures.
The Apostolic Alliance of Churches and the Christian Association of Utkal and a few other NGOs and individuals, including Suresh Kumar Kaushal, opposed the petitions.
Kaushal had also challenged the 2009 verdict by the High Court of Justice, which had reinstated Article 377 of the CPI.
[ad_2]Source link
