The Supreme Court of Singapore upheld a law that criminalizes sex between men, dismissing three separate appeals claiming that the legislation was unconstitutional.

Two lawyers involved in the hearings reported the ruling on Monday, according to Reuters.

The decision comes after a series of challenges last year to Singapore's controversial gay sex law, which has its roots in the country's British colonial era.

According to their lawyers, the applicants had argued that Section 377A, a rarely implemented law, under which a man found to have committed an act of "gross indecency" with another man could be imprisoned for up to two years, is unconstitutional.

The law does not apply to lesbians.

'Utterly shocking'

Singapore broadcaster CNA reported that the verdict was announced in the court four months after cases were made by the lawyers for the three men: Johnson Ong Ming, a disc jockey, Roy Tan Seng Kee, a retired general practitioner and Bryan Choong Chee Hoong, the former executive director of LGBT+ non-profit organization Oogachaga.

Tan's lawyer, only known by the name Ravi, told local media that the decision was "astounding" and "utterly shocking."

He argued that the "absurd and arbitrary application" of the law is a violation of the Constitution as all gay and bisexual men are forced to report their consensual private sexual acts to the police.

According to Ravi, the law breaches the right to equality and personal liberty. The lawyer said he is collaborating with a team to assess the prospects of appeal.

Discriminatory and violation of rights

Choong's lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, had made the argument based on new historical material that was not available during a 2014 appeal, CNA reported.

The lawyers referred to recently declassified documents demonstrating that the introduction of Section 377A in 1938 was to criminalize "rampant male prostitution" when Singapore was under British colonial rule.

According to CNA, Ong's lawyers, led by Eugene Thuraisingam, argued that LGBT+ people cannot wilfully change their sexual orientation, adding that Section 377A is discriminatory and violates the Constitution.

Justice See Kee Oon will release his full judgment grounds at a later date, lawyers told CNA reporters outside the chambers shortly after the decision.

'Legitimate and reasonable'

The Attorney-General's Chambers maintained that the anti-gay sex law serves a "legitimate and reasonable" state interest, "regardless of whether and how it is enforced."

They said the issue was "a deeply divisive socio-political" one that should instead be decided by Parliament, as it comprises democratically elected representatives accountable to Singaporeans, CNA reported.

The South China Morning Post reports that previous challenges against Section 377A failed, including by gay couple Lim Meng Suan and Kenneth Chee in 2012, which was dismissed on the grounds that the law was meant to "preserve public morality and signify society’s disapproval of male homosexuality."

DW's editors send out a selection of the day's hard news and quality feature journalism. Sign up for it here.