NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday confessed that it could not work out what ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ mentioned in Section 377 of the IPC meant. “The phrase ‘against the order of nature’ has neither been defined in Section 377 nor in any other provision of IPC,” CJI Dipak Misra said.He said, “The most common argument against homosexuality and criminalisation of carnal intercourse even between consenting adults of opposite sex is that traditionally, the essential purpose of sex is to procreate. With the passage of time and evolution of society, procreation is not the only reason for which people choose to come together, have live-in relationships, perform coitus or even marry.”The CJI added, “Therefore, sex, if performed differently, as per the choice of the consenting adults, does not per se make it against the order of nature.”The CJI said, “…criminalisation of consensual carnal intercourse, be it amongst homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders , hardly serves any legitimate public purpose or interest.”