Javascript required
Lompat ke konten Lompat ke sidebar Lompat ke footer
Beranda / Acts Agains the Order of Nature

Acts Agains the Order of Nature

Law criminalizing homosexuality in former British colonies

Department 377 of the British colonial penal lawmaking criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The police was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. The penal code remains in many former colonies and has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar.[1] In 2018, British Prime number Minister Theresa May best-selling how the legacies of British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the class of discrimination, violence, and death.[2]

History [edit]

Although the act of sodomy was sometimes prosecuted in England under British common constabulary, information technology was first codification in the British empire as Section 377 in the Indian Penal Code as "carnal intercourse confronting the order of nature" in 1860. Section 377 was and then exported to other colonies and even to England itself, providing the legal model for the human activity of 'buggery' in the Offenses Against the Person Deed (1861).[2] Alok Gupta wrote for a Human Rights Sentinel report in 2008 that the British intended for the lawmaking to prevent Christian colonial subjects from "corruption" and condition colonized subjects undergoing Christianization to adapt to colonial authorisation.[three]

Although Section 377 did not explicitly include the give-and-take homosexual, it has been used to prosecute homosexual activity. The provision was introduced past authorities in the Raj in 1862 as Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and functioned every bit the legal impetus backside the criminalization of what was referred to as, "unnatural offenses" throughout the various colonies, in several cases with the same section number.[four] [5] [i]

Although most colonies have since gained independence through statehood since Section 377 was implemented, it remains in the penal codes of the following countries:

  • Bangladesh[6]
  • Jamaica[ commendation needed ]
  • Malaysia[ citation needed ]
  • Myanmar[6]
  • Pakistan[6]
  • Singapore: amended in 2007 every bit Section 377A. At present whatsoever sexual act between men is illegal, and whatever sexual deed betwixt a man and a woman or between women is legal. See Section 377A of the Penal Lawmaking of Singapore.[7] [eight]
  • Sri Lanka (as Section 365)[6]

India [edit]

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Lawmaking is a section of the Indian Penal Lawmaking introduced in 1861 during the British dominion of Republic of india. Modeled on the Buggery Act of 1533, information technology makes sexual activities "confronting the club of nature" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the awarding of Department 377 to consensual homosexual sexual practice between adults was unconstitutional, "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary",[nine] but that Section 377 remains in force relating to sex with minors, not-consensual sexual acts, and bestiality.[10]

Portions of the department were first struck down as unconstitutional with respect to gay sex by the Delhi High Courtroom in July 2009.[xi] [12] [thirteen] That sentence was overturned by the Supreme Court of India (SC) on xi December 2013 in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation. The Courtroom held that alteration or repealing department 377 should be a affair left to Parliament, not the judiciary.[14] [15] On 6 Feb 2016, a three-member bench of the Courtroom reviewed curative petitions submitted by the Naz Foundation and others, and decided that they would be reviewed by a five-member constitutional bench.[16]

On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the correct to privacy as a cardinal right under the Constitution in the landmark Puttaswamy judgement. The Courtroom also called for equality and condemned discrimination, stated that the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the key rights and that the rights of the LGBT population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine.[17] This judgement was believed to imply the unconstitutionality of section 377.[18] [19] [20]

In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition to revisit the 2013 Naz Foundation judgment. On half-dozen September 2018, the Courtroom ruled unanimously in Navtej Singh Johar five. Union of India that Department 377 was unconstitutional "in so far equally it criminalises consensual sexual acquit between adults of the same sex".[21] [22] The judgment was given by a five judges demote comprising the and then Primary Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justices R. F. Nariman, D. Y. Chandrachud, A. M. Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra.

Text [edit]

377. Unnatural offences: 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 fine. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.[23] [24]

Public perception [edit]

Participant conveying a poster on Section 377 during Bhubaneswar Pride Parade

Support [edit]

In 2008 Additional Solicitor Full general PP Malhotra said: "Homosexuality is a social vice and the state has the power to incorporate information technology. [Decriminalising homosexuality] may create [a] breach of peace. If it is immune so [the] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would pb to a large health hazard and degrade moral values of order." This view was shared past the Home Ministry building.[25]

11 December 2013 sentence of the Supreme Court, upholding Department 377 was met with back up from religious leaders. The Daily News and Analysis called it "the univocal unity of religious leaders in expressing their homophobic attitude. Usually divisive and almost e'er seen tearing down each other's religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forrard in decrying homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgement."[26] The Daily News and Analysis article added that Baba Ramdev, India's well-known yoga guru, afterwards praying that journalists non "plow homosexual", stated he could "cure" homosexuality through yoga and called it "a bad addiction". The Vishwa Hindu Parishad's vice-president Om Prakash Singhal said, "This is a right determination, we welcome it. Homosexuality is against Indian culture, against nature and against science. We are regressing, going back to when we were well-nigh like animals. The SC had protected our culture." The article states that Singhal further went to dismiss HIV/AIDS concerns within the LGBT community as, "Information technology is understood that when you try to suppress one anomaly, there will be a break-out of a few more." (Traditionally, Indian culture, or at least Hinduism, has been more ambivalent about homosexuality than Singhal suggests.) Maulana Madni of the Jamiat Ulema echoes this in the article, stating that "Homosexuality is a criminal offence co-ordinate to scriptures and is unnatural. People cannot consider themselves to be exclusive of a society... In a society, a family is made upwards of a homo and a adult female, not a adult female and a adult female, or a human being and a human." Rabbi Ezekiel Issac Malekar, honorary secretary of the Judah Hyam Synagogue, in upholding the judgment was too quoted as maxim "In Judaism, our scriptures do not let homosexuality." Reverend Paul Swarup of the Cathedral Church of the Redemption in Delhi in stating his views on what he believes to be the unnaturalness of homosexuality, stated "Spiritually, human being sexual relations are identified as those shared past a man and a adult female. The Supreme Court's view is an endorsement of our scriptures."

Opposition and criticism [edit]

The Ministry of Health and Family unit Welfare opposed the upholding of Section 377, stating that it would hinder anti-HIV/AIDS efforts.[27] [28] According to the NCRB, in 2015, ane,491 people were arrested under Section 377, including 207 minors (14%) and 16 women.[29] Man Rights Picket also argued that the law had been used to harass HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, as well as sexual practice workers, homosexuals, and other groups at adventure of the disease,[30] even though those constitute guilty of extortion in relation to accusations that chronicle to Section 377 may face a life judgement nether a special provision of Section 389 of the IPC.[31] The People's Marriage for Ceremonious Liberties has published 2 reports of the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[32] and, in particular, transsexuals in India.[33]

In 2006, Department 377 came under criticism from 100 Indian literary figures,[34] most prominently Vikram Seth. The police force afterwards drew even more criticism from several ministers, most prominently Anbumani Ramadoss[35] and Oscar Fernandes.[36] In 2008, a guess of the Bombay High Court likewise called for the scrapping of the law.[37]

The United Nations besides said that the ban violated international police force. Un human rights chief Navi Pillay stated that "Criminalising private, consensual aforementioned-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified", and that the conclusion "represents a pregnant footstep backwards for India and a blow for human rights.", voicing promise that the Court might practice its review procedure.[38]

View of political parties [edit]

Opposition [edit]

Rajnath Singh, a member of the ruling political party BJP and the Home Government minister, is on tape before long after the law was re-instated in 2013, claiming that his party is "unambiguously" in favour of the police, also claiming that "We volition state (at an all-political party coming together if it is chosen) that we support Section 377 because nosotros believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported."[39] Yogi Adityanath, BJP MP, welcomed the 2013 verdict and will "oppose whatsoever move to decriminalise homosexuality."[forty]

The Samajwadi Party fabricated it articulate that it will oppose any amendments to the section if it comes in Parliament for discussion, calling homosexuality "unethical and immoral."[41] Ram Gopal Yadav stated that they support the Supreme Courtroom decision as "It is completely against the civilisation of our nation."[4]

The Congress party led UPA government besides supported the law during the initial Naz Foundation case, stating that gay sexual practice was 'immoral' and that information technology cannot exist decriminalised.[42]

Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy said that homosexuality was non a normal thing and was confronting Hindutva.[43] He went on to say that it was "a danger to our national security" and that the government should invest in medical inquiry to see if homosexuality can exist cured. He added that "there is a lot of money behind it. The Americans want to open gay bars, and it'll exist a comprehend for paedophiles and a huge rise in HIV cases."[44]

Nigh political parties which opposed homosexuality previously had reversed their stand after the 2018 verdict by the Supreme Court, except Indian Union Muslim League which continued to oppose saying that 'homosexuality is against Indian culture'.[45]

Support [edit]

Quondam Finance Minister and BJP fellow member Arun Jaitley said that "Supreme Court should non have reversed the Delhi High Courtroom club which de-criminalised consensual sex between gay adults" and "When millions of people the globe over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is besides late in the day to propound the view that they should be jailed.".[46] [47] BJP spokesperson Shaina NC said her party supports decriminalisation of homosexuality. "Nosotros are for decriminalising homosexuality. That is the progressive manner forward."[48]

In December 2013, Indian National Congress President Rahul Gandhi came out in support of LGBT rights and said that "every individual had the right to choose". He besides said "These are personal choices. This country is known for its freedom, liberty of expression. So let that exist. I hope that Parliament will address the event and uphold the ramble guarantee of life and freedom to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgement", he said. The LGBT rights movement in Republic of india was also part of the election manifesto of the Congress for the 2014 general elections.[46] Sonia Gandhi also shared a similar view.[49] Senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram stated that the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation judgement must exist apace reversed.[four] He also said that "Section 377, in my view, was rightly struck downward or read down by the Delhi High Court judgement past Justice AP Shah."[fifty]

The RSS revised its position, the leader Dattatreya Hosabale reportedly saying, "no criminalisation, but no glorification either."[51] RSS leader Bhagwat also came out in support of the LGBTQIA+ community stating that they should exist accepted as an integral part of society. Subsequently the 2013 verdict, the Aam Aadmi Party put on their website:

The Aam Aadmi party is disappointed with the judgment of the Supreme Courtroom upholding the Department 377 of the IPC and reversing the landmark judgment of the Delhi High Court on the subject. The Supreme Court judgment thus criminalises the personal behaviour of consenting adults. All those who are born with or choose a different sexual orientation would thus be placed at the mercy of the law. This not only violates the homo rights of such individuals, but goes against the liberal values of our Constitution, and the spirit of our times. Aam Aadmi Political party hopes and expects that the Supreme Court will review this judgment and that the Parliament will besides step in to repeal this archaic law.[46]

Brinda Karat of the Communist Political party said the SC society was retrograde and that criminalising alternative sexuality is incorrect.[52]

Shivanand Tiwari, leader of Janata Dal United, did not support the Supreme Court determination, calling homosexuality applied and constitutional. He added that "This happens in club and if people believe it is natural for them, why is the Supreme Courtroom trying to stop them?"[iv]

Derek O'Brien of the Trinamool Congress said that he is disappointed at a personal level and this is not expected in the liberal earth we alive in today.[4]

Legislative action [edit]

On 18 December 2015, Lok Sabha member Shashi Tharoor of the Indian National Congress introduced a private member's beak to supplant Department 377 in the Indian Penal Code and decriminalize consensual aforementioned-sex relations. The bill was defeated in first reading, 71–24.[53] For his office, Tharoor expressed surprise at the neb's rejection at this early phase. He said that he did non have fourth dimension to rally support and that he will try to reintroduce the pecker.[53]

In March 2016, Tharoor tried to reintroduce the private member's neb to decriminalize homosexuality, but was voted down for the second fourth dimension.[54]

Judiciary action [edit]

2009 Naz Foundation V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [edit]

The judgement of the Loftier Court of Delhi of two July 2009 declared portions of section 377 unconstitutional w.r.t consensual sex amid adults

The movement to repeal Department 377 was initiated past AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan in 1991. Their celebrated publication Less than Gay: A Citizen'south Written report, spelt out the problems with 377 and asked for its repeal. A 1996 article in Economic and Political Weekly by Vimal Balasubrahmanyan titled 'Gay Rights In India' chronicles this early history. As the instance prolonged over the years, it was revived in the next decade, led past the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, an activist group, which filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.[55] The Naz Foundation worked with a legal team from the Lawyers Collective to engage in court.[56] In 2003, the Delhi Loftier Court refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the police force, saying that the petitioners, had no locus standi in the matter. Since nobody had been prosecuted in the recent by nether this section information technology seemed unlikely that the section would be struck down as illegal by the Delhi High Court in the absence of a petitioner with standing. Naz Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Loftier Court to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Courtroom decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a PIL in this instance and sent the case back to the Delhi High Courtroom to reconsider it on merit.[57] Subsequently, there was a significant intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human being rights activists chosen 'Voices Against 377', which supported the need to 'read down' department 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.[58]

In that location was support from others like Sunil Mehra, a notable journalist. He was in a committed relationship with Navtej Singh Johar and drew from his personal experiences while protesting. Ritu Dalmia as well demonstrated dandy activism. Aman Nath, a writer, historian, and hotelier, also fought for the decriminalisation of Department 377. He had a relationship with Francis Wacziarg for 23 years until Wacziarg passed away.[59] Ayesha Kapur became successful within a decade of working in a nascent due east-commerce sector. However, she left her job because she was afraid of people finding out most her sexuality. Over fourth dimension, she gained the backbone to come up out and challenge Section 377.[60]

In May 2008, the case came upwards for hearing in the Delhi High Courtroom, but the Authorities was undecided on its position, with The Ministry building of Home Affairs maintaining a contradictory position to that of The Ministry of Health on the issue of enforcement of Department 377 with respect to homosexuality.[61] On 7 Nov 2008, the seven-yr-old petition finished hearings. The Indian Health Ministry supported this petition, while the Abode Ministry opposed such a move.[62] On 12 June 2009, Republic of india'south new law government minister Veerappa Moily agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.[63]

Eventually, in a celebrated sentence delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section,[64] legalising consensual homosexual activities betwixt adults.[65] The essence of the section goes against the fundamental correct of human citizens, stated the high court while hit it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Commodity 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.

The two-judge demote went on to hold that:

If there is one constitutional tenet that tin be said to exist underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of 'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian social club, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority every bit 'deviants' or 'unlike' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.

Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination.

This was the 'spirit backside the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke and then passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive past the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which volition foster the dignity of every private.[66]

The court stated that the judgement would hold until Parliament chose to improve the police force. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.[64]

A batch of appeals were filed with the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi Loftier Court judgment. On 27 March 2012, the Supreme Court reserved verdict on these.[67] After initially opposing the judgement, the Attorney General G. Due east. Vahanvati decided non to file any appeal against the Delhi High Courtroom's verdict, stating, "insofar equally [Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code] criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private [before it was struck downwards past the Loftier Court] was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers."[67]

2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation [edit]

Suresh Kumar Koushal and some other v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a two-estimate Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and Due south. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi Loftier Courtroom case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

This ruling was despite the urging of a group of mental health professionals who filed a collection of written submissions to the Supreme court with commentary on the instance grounded in their proficient stance[68] The mental health professionals noted that they frequently see LGBT or queer clients who suffer significant psychological distress—low, anxiety, and more—due to the threat and social censure posed by IPC 377.[ commendation needed ] These mental health professionals argued that IPC 377 causes LGBT and queer individuals to feel that they are "criminals," and that this condition is a pregnant part of their psychological distress.[ citation needed ]

The United nations human rights principal Navi Pillay[69] voiced her thwarting at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it "a significant step backwards" for the country. In the wake of Indian Supreme Courtroom'due south ruling that gay sex is illegal, United nations chief Ban Ki-moon stressed on the need for equality and opposed any discrimination confronting lesbians, gays and bisexuals.[70]

Presently after the judgement, Sonia Gandhi, President of the then ruling Congress political party, asked Parliament to practice away with section 377. Her son and Congress Party vice-President, Rahul Gandhi also wanted department-377 to become and supported gay rights.[71] In July 2014, Minister of State for Habitation Kiren Rijiju in the BJP led Central regime told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that a determination regarding Section 377 of IPC tin can be taken only subsequently pronouncement of judgement by the Supreme Court.[72] All the same, on xiii Jan 2015, BJP spokesperson Shaina NC, actualization on NDTV, stated, "We [BJP] are for decriminalizing homosexuality. That is the progressive way forward."[73]

2016 Naz Foundation Curative Petition [edit]

On ii Feb 2016, the concluding hearing of the curative petition submitted by the Naz Foundation and others came for hearing in the Supreme Court. The three-fellow member bench headed by the Primary Justice of India T. S. Thakur said that all the 8 curative petitions submitted will be reviewed anew past a five-member constitutional demote.[16]

Correct to Privacy verdict [edit]

On 24 Baronial 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the Right to Privacy verdict. In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of Republic of india And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a key right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a "discordant note which straight bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy." In the judgement delivered by the 9-estimate demote, Justice Chandrachud (who authored for Justices Khehar, Agarwal, Abdul Nazeer and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. Justice Kaul agreed with Justice Chandrachud's view that the right of privacy cannot exist denied, even if at that place is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does non apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a not-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged nether the Constitution of India.[17]

Sexual orientation is an essential aspect of privacy. Bigotry against an private on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the nobility and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in order must exist protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles fourteen, xv and 21 of the Constitution.[17]

...Their rights are not "so-called" simply are real rights founded on sound ramble doctrine. They inhere in the correct to life. They dwell in privacy and nobility. They plant the essence of freedom and freedom. Sexual orientation is an essential component of identity. Equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.[17]

However, as the curative petition (challenging Department 377) is currently sub-judice, the judges authored that they would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. Many legal experts accept suggested that with this judgement, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the footing-work for Section 377 to exist read down and the restoration of the 2009 Judgement of the High Court, thereby decriminalizing homosexual sex.[74] [75]

2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Marriage of Bharat [edit]

In 2018, after decades of grassroots activism, the awarding of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to private consensual sex betwixt men was ruled unconstitutional by India's Supreme Courtroom, effectively decriminalizing homosexual action.[46] [76]

The five-gauge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court consisting of primary justice Dipak Misra and justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, and Rohinton Fali Nariman started hearing the challenge to constitutionality of Section 377. The Union Regime did non accept a position on the issue and left it to the "wisdom of the court" to determine on Section 377. The petitioners invoked the right to sexual privacy, dignity, right against discrimination and freedom of expression to contend against the constitutionality of Section 377. Afterward hearing the petitioners' plea for 4 days, the court reserved its verdict on 17 July 2018. The bench pronounced its verdict on 6 September 2018.[77] Announcing the verdict, the court reversed its ain 2013 judgement of restoring Section 377 by stating that using the section of the IPC to victimize homosexuals was unconstitutional, and henceforth, a criminal act.[78] [79] In its ruling, the Supreme Courtroom stated that consensual sexual acts between adults cannot be a crime, deeming the prior law "irrational, capricious and incomprehensible."[80] [81]

The Wire drew parallels between the supreme court's sentence and Privy Council'south 1929 verdict in Edwards vs Canada (AG) that allowed for Women to sit down in the Senate of Canada. It compared the petitioners to the Canadian Famous Five.[82]

Documentary [edit]

In 2011, Italian film maker Adele Tulli, made 365 Without 377 which followed the landmarking ruling in 2009, and the Indian LGBTQ community in Bombay celebrations.[83] It won the Turin LGBT Film Fest honor in 2011.[84]

Singapore [edit]

See likewise [edit]

  • Section 377 of the Penal Code (Singapore)
  • LGBT rights in India
  • Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code
  • Sodomy constabulary
  • LGBT rights in the Republic of Nations

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b Chua, Lynette J.; Gilbert, David (2016). "Country violence, human-rights violations and the example of apwint of Myanmar". Gender, Violence and the Country in Asia. Taylor & Francis. ISBN9781317325949.
  2. ^ a b Rao, Rahul (2020). Out of Fourth dimension: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. Oxford University Press. pp. seven–9. ISBN9780190865535.
  3. ^ Gupta, Alok (2008). This Alien Legacy: The Origins of "Anti-Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism. Human Rights Watch. p. 16. ISBN9781564324191.
  4. ^ a b c d e Stoddard, Eve; Collins, John (2016). Social and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 135. ISBN9781317509776.
  5. ^ McCann, Hannah; Monaghan, Whitney (2020). Queer Theory Now. Red World Press. p. 163. ISBN9781352007510.
  6. ^ a b c d Elliott, Josh (6 September 2018). "India legalized homosexuality, but many of its neighbours haven't". Global News . Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  7. ^ "Singapore reforms sex laws - just non for homosexuals". The Guardian. 24 October 2007. Archived from the original on v July 2019. Retrieved five July 2019.
  8. ^ "Department 377A in Singapore and the (De)Criminalization of Homosexuality" (PDF). National University of Singapore. Archived (PDF) from the original on twenty September 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2019. Section 377A only criminalizes sex between males, but non between females.
  9. ^ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018). "SC decriminalises homosexuality". The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com.
  10. ^ Pundir, Pallavi (half dozen September 2018). "I Am What I Am. Accept Me equally I Am". Vice News . Retrieved viii September 2018.
  11. ^ "Delhi high court decriminalizes homosexuality". www.livemint.com. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018.
  12. ^ "Indian courtroom decriminalises homosexuality in Delhi". the Guardian. Associated Press. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 10 July 2018.
  13. ^ Reuters Editorial. "Delhi High Courtroom overturns ban on gay sexual activity". IN . Retrieved ten July 2018.
  14. ^ Monalisa (11 December 2013). "Policy". Livemint . Retrieved ten July 2018.
  15. ^ Venkatesan, J. (xi December 2013). "Supreme Courtroom sets aside Delhi HC verdict decriminalising gay sexual activity". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 10 July 2018.
  16. ^ a b "Supreme Court agrees to hear petition on Section 376, refers matter to v-judge demote". two February 2016. Retrieved 2 Feb 2016.
  17. ^ a b c d "Right to Privacy Sentence" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 24 Baronial 2017. pp. 121, 123–24. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 Baronial 2017.
  18. ^ Balakrishnan, Pulapre (25 Baronial 2017). "Endgame for Section 377?". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 10 July 2018.
  19. ^ "Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place". www.firstpost.com . Retrieved x July 2018.
  20. ^ "Correct to Privacy Judgment Makes Section 377 Very Hard to Defend, Says Approximate Who Read It Down". The Wire . Retrieved 10 July 2018.
  21. ^ Judgment, par. 156.
  22. ^ "Supreme Court Scraps Section 377; 'Majoritarian Views Cannot Dictate Rights,' Says CJI". The Wire . Retrieved 6 September 2018.
  23. ^ "Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code". Indian Kanoon . Retrieved 2017-10-xxx .
  24. ^ "The Indian Penal Code, 1860" (PDF). Chandigarh Commune Courtroom. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 January 2007. Retrieved xxx October 2017.
  25. ^ "HC pulls up authorities for homosexuality doublespeak". India Today. 26 September 2008.
  26. ^ "Rare unity: Religious leaders come out in support of Section 377". DNAIndia.com. 12 Dec 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
  27. ^ "Department 377 and the police: What courts accept said virtually homosexuality over time". hindustantimes.com/. 2018-02-05. Retrieved 2018-09-24 .
  28. ^ "Gay sex activity is immoral and tin't exist decriminalised, Govt tells HC". outlookindia.com/ . Retrieved 2018-09-24 .
  29. ^ Thomas, Shibu (29 September 2016). "14% of those arrested under section 377 terminal year were minors". The Times Of Republic of india . Retrieved 4 November 2017.
  30. ^ India: Repeal Colonial-Era Sodomy Law, report from Human Rights Sentinel, 11 January 2006.
  31. ^ "Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code". IndianKanoon.org . Retrieved 30 December 2017.
  32. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 25 July 2009. Retrieved ii July 2009. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as championship (link)
  33. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on two Feb 2007. Retrieved 5 February 2007. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create as title (link)
  34. ^ Ramesh, Randeep (18 September 2006). "India's literary elite call for anti-gay law to be scrapped". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 September 2007.
  35. ^ Kounteya Sinha (9 August 2008). "Legalise homosexuality: Ramadoss". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 25 Oct 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
  36. ^ Vikram Doctor (ii July 2008). "Opposite swing: Information technology may exist an open up affair for gays, lesbians". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
  37. ^ Shibu Thomas (25 July 2008). "Unnatural-sexual practice police needs relook: Mumbai HC". The Times of India . Retrieved 12 February 2009.
  38. ^ "Ban on gay sex violates international law". Reuters. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 4 Nov 2017.
  39. ^ Rameshan, Radhika (xiii December 2011). "BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexuality". The Telegraph.
  40. ^ Jyoti, Dhrubo (12 December 2013). "Political Leaders React To Supreme Court Judgement On Sec 377". Gaylaxy. Archived from the original on 11 May 2014. Retrieved 3 November 2017.
  41. ^ "Homosexuality Is Unethical And Immoral: Samajwadi Party". News 18. 12 Dec 2013. Retrieved three November 2017.
  42. ^ "Gay sexual activity is immoral and can't be decriminalised, Govt tells HC". www.outlookindia.com . Retrieved eleven September 2018.
  43. ^ "Being gay is confronting Hindutva, it needs a cure: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy". The Times of Bharat. 10 July 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2020.
  44. ^ "Department 377: Homosexuality confronting Hindutva, cannot celebrate it, says BJP leader Subramanian Swamy | India News". www.timesnownews.com . Retrieved 2019-04-eleven .
  45. ^ "Indian Spousal relationship Muslim League opposes Supreme Courtroom verdict, says it is against Indian civilization". Times of India.
  46. ^ a b c d Hans, Namit (xiv February 2017). "Increasing back up for gay rights from BJP leaders. A rainbow in sight?". Catch News . Retrieved 3 November 2017.
  47. ^ Roy, Sandip (3 Feb 2016). "The BJP And Its 377 Problem". HuffPost . Retrieved iii November 2017.
  48. ^ "BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC". fourteen January 2015.
  49. ^ "Statements of Sonia, Rahul Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on Section 377 exposes character of Congress leaders: Baba Ramdev". DNAIndia.com. 13 December 2013. Retrieved thirty December 2017.
  50. ^ "Court should accept relook at Department 377 after today'south verdict: Chidambaram". United News of India. 24 August 2017. Retrieved iv November 2017.
  51. ^ Tiwari, Ravish (19 March 2016). "Section 377: Unlike RSS, BJP shies away from taking a stand on homosexuality". The Economical Times . Retrieved 3 Nov 2017.
  52. ^ "Section 377: Where does each party stand?". The News Infinitesimal. 29 Nov 2015. Retrieved 3 Nov 2017.
  53. ^ a b "Shashi Tharoor's bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha". IndianExpress.com. xviii Dec 2015. Retrieved 30 Dec 2017.
  54. ^ "BJP thwarting Beak on gays: Tharoor". The Hindu. 11 March 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016.
  55. ^ "Chronology: 8-year-long legal battle for gay rights". CNN-IBN. Archived from the original on v July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
  56. ^ Kian Ganz (two July 2009). "Lawyers Collective overturns anti-gay police". legallyindia.com . Retrieved 9 April 2011.
  57. ^ Sheela Bhatt (three February 2006). "Gay Rights is matter of Public Interest: SC". Rediff News. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  58. ^ Shibu Thomas (twenty May 2008). "Delhi HC to have up PIL on LGBT rights". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved seven July 2009.
  59. ^ "Section 377: The famous and fearless five who convinced SC - Times of India ►". The Times of India . Retrieved 2018-09-26 .
  60. ^ "Gay in India, Where Progress Has Come Only With Take a chance". Retrieved 2018-09-26 .
  61. ^ "Centre divided on punishment of homosexuality". DNA.
  62. ^ "Delhi high courtroom all set to rule on same-sex activity activity petition - Livemint". www.Livemint.com . Retrieved xxx December 2017.
  63. ^ "Moily signals rethink on anti-gay law". The Times of Bharat. 12 June 2009. Archived from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  64. ^ a b "Delhi High Court legalises consensual gay sex". CNN-IBN. Archived from the original on 5 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
  65. ^ "Gay sex decriminalised in India". BBC. 2 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
  66. ^ "Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi" (PDF). Delhi High Courtroom. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 August 2009. Retrieved two July 2009.
  67. ^ a b "Verdict reserved on appeals in gay sex activity case". The Hindu. New Delhi, Republic of india. 27 March 2012. Retrieved three October 2012.
  68. ^ Shesadri, Shekha; et al. "Mental Health Professionals--Written Submissions" (PDF) . Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  69. ^ "United nations Criticizes SC Verdict on Sec 377". enewspaper of India. December 12, 2013. Archived from the original on Feb 21, 2014. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  70. ^ "United nations chief Ban Ki-moon calls for equality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals". The Economic Times. 12 Dec 2013. Archived from the original on December 16, 2013. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  71. ^ "Rahul Gandhi too wants Section 377 to go, supports gay rights". India Today Online New Delhi. December 12, 2013. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  72. ^ Press Trust of Republic of india (July 22, 2014). "No plans to amend Section 377 till SC decision: Modi govt". The Indian Limited . Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  73. ^ Ratnam, Dhamini (14 January 2015). "BJP supports decriminalization of homosexuality: Shaina NC". Mint . Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  74. ^ "Legal experts on 377 and Correct to Privacy". Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  75. ^ "The Hindu on 377 and Right to Privacy".
  76. ^ "India But Decriminalized Gay Sex". BuzzFeed News . Retrieved 2018-09-06 .
  77. ^ "Department 377 Verdict Past Supreme Court Tomorrow: 10-Point Guide". NDTV.com . Retrieved five September 2018.
  78. ^ "1 Republic of india, Equal In Beloved: Supreme Court Ends Section 377". NDTV.com . Retrieved six September 2018.
  79. ^ "Republic of india decriminalises gay sex in landmark verdict". world wide web.aljazeera.com . Retrieved 6 September 2018.
  80. ^ "'Gay sex is not a criminal offense,' says Supreme Courtroom in historic judgment". The Times of India . Retrieved half-dozen September 2018.
  81. ^ "NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR v. Wedlock OF INDIA Ministry building OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY. [2018] INSC 746 (half-dozen September 2018)". Legal Information Constitute of India. Retrieved one April 2020.
  82. ^ "From Canada to India, 'Valiant Five' Have Secured a Marginalised Group's Rights". The Wire . Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  83. ^ "365 without 377 - Adele Tulli". www.queerdocumentaries.com . Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  84. ^ Paternò, Cristiana (xi February 2019). "Adele Tulli: "Italia is a lab for gender"". news.cinecitta.com . Retrieved 14 May 2019.

Further reading [edit]

  • McGoldrick, Dominic (2019). "Challenging the Constitutionality of Restrictions on Same-Sex Sexual Relations: Lessons from India". Human Rights Constabulary Review. 19 (i): 173–185. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngy041.
  • Sanders, Douglas Due east. (2009). "377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia". Asian Journal of Comparative Law. 4: one–49. doi:10.1017/S2194607800000417.

External links [edit]

  • Male-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in Southern asia: an assay of the politico-legal framework, Arvind Narrain & Brototi Dutta, 2006.
  • Official website of the Naz Foundation of (India) Trust
  • Department 377 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Mobile)

evecolman.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377#:~:text=Unnatural%20offences%3A%20Whoever%20voluntarily%20has,also%20be%20liable%20to%20fine.