Fridae

A group of 19 parents of LGBTs is among six groups who have petitioned the Supreme Court in support of the Delhi High Court's landmark decision in 2009 that decriminalised homosexual relations between consenting adults. The Supreme Court on 7 February said it would hear all 19 petitions of which 13 are opposed to the 2009 decision on April 19.

The five other supporting petitions were filed by a group of 13 mental health professionals; 16 academics from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University, Tata Institute of Social Sciences and others; Shyam Benegal, a prominent Indian director and screenwriter; Voices Against 377 and HIV/AIDS NGO Naz Foundation, which initiated the legal challenge in 2001.

Parents of LGBTs: Gay sex law is a threat to family values

Arguing that the "real harm to family values is caused by divisive and discriminatory laws" like Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the group of parents called on the Supreme Court to uphold the Delhi High Court’s decision.

In a press release obtained by Fridae, it quoted the petition as saying: “It is Section 377 which is a threat to family values, as it directly affects the rights of the Applicants to safeguard their families from illegal and arbitrary intrusion from the state authorities. Section 377 invades the sanctity of the family, home or correspondence and allows for unlawful attacks on the honour and reputation both parents of LBGT persons as well as LGBT persons themselves.”

The press release dated Feb 7, 2011 said: "This decision has come under sustained attack from several parties who would seem to have no link to any homosexual person, but who still claim that this decision is harmful. Their most commonly reason is that it will attack the family values on which our country is based.

"This biased and misleading response has now been countered in the Supreme Court by a group of people who very definitely do know a homosexual person – their very own child. In a petition that has just been admitted in the case, a group of parents of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people from across the country have come together to describe the very real harm that criminalisation has caused their children, and themselves."

The three of the 19 parents who were identified by name include Mrs.Minna Saran, mother of the late Nishit Saran, a young filmmaker who documented his struggles in trying to come out about his sexuality, before he died in a tragic road accident; Mrs.Munithayamma, the mother of Veena. S. who identifies as a hijra; and Chitra Palekar, a filmmaker and an award winning theatre actor and director, and mother of Dr.Shalmalee Palekar, an academic who identifies as lesbian. The other parents are said to be homemakers, teachers, an employee of the Postal Department and the head of a co-operative bank.

Mental health professionals: Gay sex laws are "arbitrary" and "harmful"

Thirteen mental health professionals who practice as psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and behavioural psychologists have also jointly submitted a petition, which has been admitted by the Supreme Court, in which they argue that striking down the verdict will greatly harm LGBT persons.

Calling Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalised gay sex "arbitrary" and "harmful", they say that through their years of experience in counseling LGBT persons the law encouraged discrimination, harassment and abuse of LGBT persons, and conveyed the message that they [homosexuals] are criminals.

"By forcing them to hide their sexuality, this law caused mental stress and anxiety to LGBT persons." Read the press statement issued by the group led by psychiatrist Dr Shekhar Sheshadri from the National Institute for Mental Health Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, which functions under the authority of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It also includes Dr Alok Sarin, head of psychiatric services at the Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and Research, and Dr Vikram Patel who works for Sangath, a mental health organisation in Goa.

Academics: Views of ‘religious leaders’ cannot be taken as being the final word

The petition submitted by the group of academics contains 16 signatories including Professor Nivedita Menon, Professor of Political Thought at Jawaharlal Nehru University and Professor Shohini Ghosh who is Zakir Hussain Professor of Media at the AJK Mass Communication Research Center.

The petitioners explained that their initiative is in response to the attacks made against the decision by many self-proclaimed ‘experts’, some of who have gone as far as to file appeals against the decision in the Supreme Court. The parties opposed to the High Court  decision and have filed petitions include All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council, Apostolic Churches Alliance and yoga guru Baba Ramdev who who claims that homosexuality, cancer and AIDS can be "cured" through breathing exercises.

In a press statement made available to Fridae, the academics argued for the need to consider a diversity of views, especially of people with independently established expertise. "It  the views of ‘religious leaders’ cannot be taken as being the final word on the issue which would bind all sections of society."

The academics also stated that they have interacted with hundreds of LGBT people in India and witnessed first hand the “harassment, humiliation and prejudice” LGBTs face which is exacerbated by the existence of the law. The law "legitimises an atmosphere that runs counter to the spirit of openness and acceptance of difference that should mark modern academic spaces. Its existence is not only an affront to those who are non-heterosexual, but it is an affront to each and every person in the academy who believes that every teacher and student has dignity that should be respected..."

Since the July 2, 2009 judgment, the government as well as the home and law ministries have indicated that they will not contest the ruling and it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide on the issue.

The Indian Express quoted an unnamed senior Law Ministry official as saying: "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."