Spell out stand on Section 377: SC to Centre

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 23

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to spell out its stand on a petition seeking to declare unconstitutional Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes homosexual activities between consenting adults.

Asking the Centre to respond within a week to Lalit Suri hospitality group head Kesav Suri’s petition, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra ordered tagging of the petition with other petitions on the issue already referred to a Constitution Bench.

The top court is already seized of similar pleas filed by celebrities such as dancer N S Johar, chef Ritu Dalmia and another hotelier Aman Nath against Section 377 IPC.

Suri submitted that being part of the lesbian, gays, bi-sexual, transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community, he has suffered mentally and been stigmatized on account of his sexual orientation at a personal and professional front.

On behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi contended that ‘Right to choice of sexual orientation’ should be declared as part of the fundamental Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The top court had on January 8 referred to a larger Bench a plea seeking de-criminalisation of gay sex between consenting adults. Sending it to a larger Bench, it had said the decision in Suresh Kumar Kaushal’s case (2013) to reverse the Delhi High Court’s 2009 verdict which had de-crimanized gay sex required re-consideration.

According to Section 377 of IPC, 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 ten years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

Suri also said he was constantly living under the fear of a false or potential prosecution under section 377 of the IPC and was unable to express his relationship and his right to choose his sexual partner without being worried.

“The petitioner had to deal with non-acceptance of his fundamental and intrinsic choice, ie; his homosexuality with his family and thereafter even professionally questions were raised about his sexuality, which does not happen normally with heterosexual individuals,” read his plea.