India’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will not oppose the July 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court striking down provisions in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalised same-gender, consensual sex, the Indian Express reports on Wednesday.
The report quoted sources as saying that the Union Law Ministry is expected to circulate a memorandum at a Cabinet meeting on Thursday to seek the Cabinet’s agreement to the MHA’s decision not to contest the landmark Delhi High Court judgment and for the Supreme Court to decide on the issue.
“There is nothing wrong, legally, with the judgment. It is a well-reasoned judgment. There is no purpose in opposing it. The government would like the Supreme Court, where appeals against the HC decision are pending, to decide the matter,” the paper quoted an unnamed senior Law Ministry official as saying.
When the high court first heard the case in May last year, former Home Minister Shivraj Patil and the law ministries had taken an opposing stance from the health ministry which supported the decriminalisation saying that the law has hindered HIV education and outreach programmes.
After the General Election in April and May 2009, the three newly appointed Home Minister P Chidambaram, Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and Law Minister M Veerappa Moily were reportedly instructed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to come to an agreement on the matter.
To date, eight parties have filed petitions to have the high court’s decision overturned by the Supreme Court.
Fridae has learned from Vikram Doctor, who is tracking the cases closely, that opponents include TV astrologer Suresh Kumar Koushal, SK Tijarawala (said to be yoga guru Baba Ramdev’s spokesperson), Bhim Singh, B. Krishna Bhat, B.P. Singhal, S.D. Pratinidhi Sabha & Anr, Ram Murti and the Apostolic Churches Alliance.
“The Supreme Court case has become a bit of a circus with a whole bunch of people, mostly religiously connected, falling over themselves to file petitions opposing the Delhi High Court verdict,” Doctor told Fridae.
Baba Ramdev had earlier spoken out against the ruling saying that yoga and breathing exercises can cure homosexuality.
B.P.Singhal, who has intervened in the high court hearing last year by hiring a lawyer to argue against decriminalisation, is known to be affiliated with Hindu rightwing groups.
Doctor has also noted that the language used by the Apostolic Churches Alliance spokesman who was quoted in the Times of India that reminiscent of the evangelicals and the ex-gay movement.
Describing his group as an “alliance of Christian independent churches,” spokesperson Sam Varghese, pastor of Life Fellowship, a church in the southern city of Trivandrum, said that homosexuals, who practice a “perversion of god's order,” are not immutable.
“They can be made straight. God can help them. We are willing to help them.” He added that he knows of men who have been helped to overcome their temporary deviance to lead “normal, married” lives.
Although lawyers and activists involved are happy with the government’s support of the original verdict, Doctor told Fridae that they are tracking the petitions closely as parties are expected to come out of the woodwork to file petitions seeking to overturn the high court ruling.
“We had got an indication this was possible when the government did not ask the Supreme Court to stay the Delhi High Court verdict, but we knew there was resistance from some members of the government. But the saner voices seem to have prevailed, and this is a really important signal to the Supreme Court on how the government would like this case to proceed.”
In July, the Supreme Court’s announced that it would temporarily allow the ruling to remain in effect despite the petitions filed against it while it waited for the government to come out with a definite stand on the issue.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
Nice quote:
“In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who
the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is the antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will
foster the dignity of every individual.”
–Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah in Naz Foundation (India) Trust v. Government of NCT, Delhi and Others.
Can't they just let people live in peace?
Anyways, I'm crossing my fingers hoping the Indian judiciary know better than to let religion get a grip and overturn the Delhi High Courts' decision.
Funny..a more developed country like Singapore has less human rights for it's citizens.
Hope the same for Singapore!!!! (and many other countries...)
And what's up with you gayladx? It's a public forum here for discussions, not self-promotion.
It's in fact a war between fundamentalism and secularism. Similarly, terrorism has its roots in fundamentalism. Ultimately, secularism, economic concerns and science will triumph. But in Singapore's case, the legislative branch's relative power to the government's is much weaker. The most feasible approach is not to ask the court to overrule the government's decision to keep 377a. Rather, sell the idea to the government that repealing 377a can benefit the nation in many important ways.
Or if that's difficult perhaps they could simply announce they they accept it's unconstitutional to enforce 377A, effectively "writing it down" in a similar way to India.
In most democratic systems, the three branches of government are supposed to limit one another's power. However, in Singapore's context, the executive branch has overwhelming power because 95% of the elected seats in the parliament are held by the party which the head of the executive branch controls. The means that the executive branch is able to set the agenda by, particularly, introducing laws through the parliament.
Furthermore, it's been repeatedly asserted by the party's leaders that they want Singapore's leadership to remain strong. Consequently, all major policies here, and especially those that had already been made by the executive branch, cannot bypass the PM's Office. In India's case, power is shared more equally among the 3 branches. So, we shouldn't think that what'd work in India can work in Singapore too.
The only way for the repeal to materialise anytime soon is for the activists to establish sound links between the repeal and, more generally, the liberalization of the society, and economic advantages. If they can show that it contributes towards our GDP, I am sure that the government would reconsider its position. Remember that casinos were once viewed as a No-No. Now, despite opposition from the conservative camp, the government had legalized them. And, the typical Singaporean doesn't seem to mind at all. You can see thousands queuing up to apply for jobs in the IR. What matters to the government is GDP, and what matters to most Singaporeans is employment.
And, in my opinion, we are at a transitional economic period which our activists can use to our advantage. Singapore had enjoyed rapid economic progress in the past few decades thanks largely to what economists term as irrational exuberance of the West. As the great investor George Soros has said, we are entering a new chapter. The Western world will undergo a prolonged period of economic hardship, with the US having to deal with its large deficits, aging population, and high unemployment. Singapore will have to evolve itself and find a new economic model that can sustain its economic growth, keep unemployment rate low especially for the low-skill workers, and deal with the double-whammy of aging population and low birth rate.
Given this difficult situation, the promise of higher economic growth driven by increasing diversity, innovation and immigration will become even more compelling. Activists should focus on this approach to inspire a top-down policy change for 377a and more generally liberalization towards LGBT. This means that they need an economist like Professor Florida, not just lawyers, in their team.
shame on britain for the stupid homophobic law 377
shame on queen victoria
請先登入再使用此功能。