A five-member Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court partially struck down on August 6, the over-150 years old Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) , ruling that consensual gay sex is no longer a crime.
While liberals and freedom-seekers and individuals and organisations in the country claiming to be among the progressive lot, have been celebrating the verdict, religious organisations have been expressing their concern and criticising it to be against morality. The Constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra gave the green light for gay sex between adults by overturning the verdict delivered by the Supreme Court itself in 2013. The judgement makes it clear that the provisions in Section 377 that penalise consensual gay sex between adults, are a violation of Sections 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which guarantees equality and freedom of expression. Sexual desires in humans are natural. The observation of Chief Justice is that sexual urge is natural, and showing any discrimination to anyone is a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Justice Chandrachud notes in his judgement that when others enjoy the pleasure from sexual urge, the LGBT sections are in a situation having to conceal it as second class citizens. Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman judge of the bench, went a step further by demanding that history should apologize for torture suffered by LGBT over centuries. The take of Justice RF Nariman is that homosexuality is not a psychic problem. His rationale is that in the Mental Healthcare Act, passed some time ago, homosexuality was recognized as natural. All judges share the view that homosexuals are a natural minority and as such they are entitled to all freedoms granted by the Constitution to minorities. And some treat those habituated to homosexuality as equal to transgenders.
In fact, the third sex or transgenders are born as such. They are not ones who came on the planet with a decision not to belong to male or female gender and to be transgender. For that very reason, they are entitled to all rights available to whoever is born as a human being. If in most societies they are neglected or scorned, it is undoubtedly inhuman. And the fact that steps have been taken of late to ensure equal rights and opportunity to transgenders is both relieving and positive. The nature of not only human beings, but of all creatures, is sexual relations between male and female. It is for this very reason that homosexuality has been deemed as anti-nature all through. It is not because Indian Penal Code was framed by Lord Macaulay in line with Victorian ethical concepts that sexual relations between man and man, and woman and woman was made a criminal offence in Article 377. In the same law, sexual act between man and animal also is prohibited. That provision has been left intact by the Supreme Court, without giving any specific reasons. Wouldn't we have to ask that if any perverts are interested in that, isn't their urge, interest and freedom also to be respected? If the answer is that it would be cruelty to animals, it could be countered by saying that even then it would not be as cruel as slaughtering and eating animals. And slaughter of animals is not banned in India.
Male-female sexual instinct and resultant relations are primarily ingrained in beings by nature for the sustenance of the species including man. Pleasure of copulation is only an enabling factor for that. The conception of portraying perpetuation of species as secondary, and attributing primacy to sexual pleasure, is a capitalist thought originating from pure materialism. It is the same bourgeoise culture which sees woman as a consumer commodity, certifies homosexuality as natural and creates male prostitutes. To be read with this are findings from studies which mention a major role being played by homosexuality in spreading AIDS. As per the findings of a study by CDC (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) during 2015 in America, 67 per cent of HIV-affected people were homosexuals. Even the caution applied in the matter of prostitutes is not exercised by homosexuals. The clamour likely to be raised following the apex court's judgment will be to legalize gay and lesbian marriage. The Central government should, instead of writing this off as merely reactionary concerns of orthodox religious moralists, concede to make laws in consonance with the moral and ethical code that humanity has for embraced all along, and with the innate nature of human beings. The shameless pronouncements of anarchists will push humanity to the abyss of destruction. And that is the lesson imparted by Sodom in history.