Government on Friday moved the Supreme Court with a review petition seeking re-examination of its verdict on Section 377 of IPC, reviving the penal provision making gay sex an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
The review petition contended that the December 11 judgment of the apex court setting aside the Delhi high court verdict decriminalizing sexual intercourse between same sex of consenting adults is "unsustainable".
The Centre's petition settled by attorney general G E Vahavati sought that oral arguments be heard in an open court before disposing of its review petition.
The review petitions are generally decided in chamber hearing.
In the petition filed through advocate Devdutt Kamath, the Centre has taken 76 grounds to contend that the judgment passed by Justice G S Singhvi (since retired) and Justice S J Mukhopadhaya "suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, and is contrary to well-established principles of law laid down by this court enunciating the width and ambit of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution."
"The govt has filed the review petition on Section 377 in the Supreme Court today. Let's hope the right to personal choices is preserved, Union law minister Kapil Sibal tweeted on Friday.
The Supreme Court recently dealt a cruel blow to lakhs of homosexuals, many of whom had started living together after the Delhi high court decriminalized same-sex relationships four years ago, by making it a crime again, even if it is consensual and done between adults in private. The 'crime' will attract a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
The bench of Justices Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya reversed the Delhi HC's 2009 verdict and held that the 150-year-old Section 377, criminalizing gay sex, "does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality."
The bench said: "In the light of plain meaning and legislative history of the section, we hold that Section 377 IPC would apply irrespective of age and consent." It added that the section does not discriminate any group with a particular sexual preference, a stand that was diametrically opposite to that by the Delhi HC.
"It is relevant to mention here that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts, which if committed, would constitute an offence. Such prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation," Justices Singhvi said.
The review petition contended that the December 11 judgment of the apex court setting aside the Delhi high court verdict decriminalizing sexual intercourse between same sex of consenting adults is "unsustainable".
The Centre's petition settled by attorney general G E Vahavati sought that oral arguments be heard in an open court before disposing of its review petition.
The review petitions are generally decided in chamber hearing.
In the petition filed through advocate Devdutt Kamath, the Centre has taken 76 grounds to contend that the judgment passed by Justice G S Singhvi (since retired) and Justice S J Mukhopadhaya "suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, and is contrary to well-established principles of law laid down by this court enunciating the width and ambit of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution."
"The govt has filed the review petition on Section 377 in the Supreme Court today. Let's hope the right to personal choices is preserved, Union law minister Kapil Sibal tweeted on Friday.
The Supreme Court recently dealt a cruel blow to lakhs of homosexuals, many of whom had started living together after the Delhi high court decriminalized same-sex relationships four years ago, by making it a crime again, even if it is consensual and done between adults in private. The 'crime' will attract a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
The bench of Justices Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya reversed the Delhi HC's 2009 verdict and held that the 150-year-old Section 377, criminalizing gay sex, "does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality."
The bench said: "In the light of plain meaning and legislative history of the section, we hold that Section 377 IPC would apply irrespective of age and consent." It added that the section does not discriminate any group with a particular sexual preference, a stand that was diametrically opposite to that by the Delhi HC.
"It is relevant to mention here that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts, which if committed, would constitute an offence. Such prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation," Justices Singhvi said.
No comments:
Post a Comment