377

377

377

Article

377

What is Section 377:

Section 377 refers to 'unnatural offences' and says 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 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.



The Case:

The Supreme Court had in 2013 had restored the criminality of the sexual relationship between persons of the same sex, after the Delhi High Court' had decriminalised it in 2009.



In 2009, the Delhi High Court had decriminalised Section 377, but the order was later set aside by a Supreme-Court bench.



Delhi High Court had declared Section 377 unconstitutional, and said it was in violation of the fundamental rights. The High Court, led by its then Chief Justice A.P. Shah, had read down Section 377 to apply only to non-consensual, penile, non-vaginal sex, and sexual acts by adults with minors.??



Categorised as an unnatural offence, consensual sexual intercourse between persons of same-sex is termed 'against the order of nature' under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and can be punishable by life imprisonment.



The Petitioners:

The petitions against Section 377 have been filed by as many as 32 individuals, including celebrities, IITians and LGBT activists such as Bharatnatyam dancer Navtej Johar, culture expert Aman Nath, restaurateurs Ritu Dalmia and Ayesha Kapur, media person Sunil Mehra, hotelier Keshav Suri, the



Likely relief for the community: Section 377 refers to 'unnatural offences' and says 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 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.The Supreme Court had in 2013 had restored the criminality of the sexual relationship between persons of the same sex, after the Delhi High Court' had decriminalised it in 2009.In 2009, the Delhi High Court had decriminalised Section 377, but the order was later set aside by a Supreme-Court bench.Delhi High Court had declared Section 377 unconstitutional, and said it was in violation of the fundamental rights. The High Court, led by its then Chief Justice A.P. Shah, had read down Section 377 to apply only to non-consensual, penile, non-vaginal sex, and sexual acts by adults with minors.??Categorised as an unnatural offence, consensual sexual intercourse between persons of same-sex is termed 'against the order of nature' under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and can be punishable by life imprisonment.The petitions against Section 377 have been filed by as many as 32 individuals, including celebrities, IITians and LGBT activists such as Bharatnatyam dancer Navtej Johar, culture expert Aman Nath, restaurateurs Ritu Dalmia and Ayesha Kapur, media person Sunil Mehra, hotelier Keshav Suri, the Naz Foundation and others.

Decriminalising sex between consenting adults will help protect the LGBTQ community from social harassment and police action.



The hearing gives hope to the community as the bench includes Justice Chandrachud, who as part of the nine-judge bench deciding the fundamental nature of right to privacy had on January 8 said that LGBTQ community members' sexual orientation had an inseparable relationship with their fundamental right to privacy and accepted that the SC had erred in denying them that right.

Timeline of battle against Section 377:

1994: Aids Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan files petition against Section 377. Petition lies dormant

1998: Women’s groups protest after right-wing organisations force cinemas to stop screening Fire, a film that depicted a lesbian relationship

2001: Naz Foundation files petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377

2004: Delhi high court dismisses the case

2006: Supreme Court direct Delhi high court to hear the case; Voices Against 377, a coalition of human rights groups joins petition; Several LGBT persons file affidavits

2009: Delhi HC says Section 377 does not apply to consenting adults; Astrologer Suresh Kumar Koushal, and 15 others challenge this order in SC; Parents, academicians, and mental health professionals intervene in favour of LGBT persons

2013: Supreme Court strikes down Delhi high court judgment

2013: Global Day of Rage demonstrations organised in over 30 cities worldwide to protest against Section 377

2014: Curative petitions listed; SC delivers NALSA judgement recognising the rights of transgender persons

2016: Curative petitions referred to Constitution Bench; Two fresh petitions from LGBT persons, including Navtej Johar and Others vs Union of India challenging Section 377 filed

2018: Navtej Johar petition assigned to Constitution Bench; fresh petitions filed by NGOs, IIT students and alumni, and activists. Hearings begin in front of a five-judge bench.

Centre today put the onus on the Supreme Court to decide on the criminality of the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), which criminalises consensual gay sex.Submitting affidavit in the apex court, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the five-judge constitution bench that the Centre will leave the matter of constitutionality of Section 377 to be decided by the Apex Court. The Centre said it has no objection with the court dealing with the validity of this penal provision.Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging a 158-year-old colonial-era law that criminalises gay sex.During the hearing yesterday, the apex court had observed that colonial laws like Sectionwill have to pass the rigours of the Constitution.The court said it would only deal with the question of validity of sectionthat bans homosexuality after it was submitted by a petitioner that it should not restrict the hearing to just this IPC provision.A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it will examine the correctness of its 2013 verdict setting aside the Delhi High Court judgement decriminalising gay sex under section. The bench said two separate and distinct issues were open for arguments. These are whether sex against the order of nature, as prescribed under the law, was "retrograde" and can sexual rights to persons be denied just because they formed a minuscule minority.Opening his arguments, former Attorney General and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for a petitioner and dancer Navtej Jauhar, said he wanted a "declaration" from the apex court that the rights of those who formed sexual minority are protected under21 (right to life and liberty) and the first issue would be to test the correctness of the 2013 judgement.He said "pre-constitutional law like section" will have to go as it does not conform to the Constitution."What is the 'order of nature'? Was it the order of nature in 1860? What is the order of nature that can change with the passage of time. Laws made 50 years ago can become invalid over time," he submitted.(Inputs from PTI)