asterix Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 now both Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have come out against the SC Judgement so I think the Govt. will take action. What action... Mulayam will Veto everything...:giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhunaeh Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Meenakshi Lekhi, a Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson and Supreme Court lawyer, said: “We welcome the decision of the court because it is important that Section 377 remains. It is not only women who can be exploited and harassed but men also get exploited so there is a need for a law to protect men too. “If there is a law to protect women, how can there not be a law to protect men? What happens between people inside their homes is not being questioned but if there is a victim then the complaint should be addressed. Delhi has seen incidents where homosexuals have been attacked and killed. In 2004, two homosexual men were murdered in Delhi, so this law is needed so men are not harassed,” said Lekhi. shows such concern for men while throwing millions of men under the bus, just like a post from the defender of men i read on this thread yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 If there is a law to protect women, how can there not be a law to protect men? What happens between people inside their homes is not being questioned but if there is a victim then the complaint should be addressed. Delhi has seen incidents where homosexuals have been attacked and killed. In 2004, two homosexual men were murdered in Delhi, so this law is needed so men are not harassed Wait, what? Is it the homesexuals fault that they happend to be homoesexual or the attackers fault that they assaulted homoesexuals? By this same logic, next time there's an attack on a women, the solution is tackle the problem is by banning all women? :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/gay-sex-is-a-matter-of-personal-freedom-rahul/article5452026.ece?homepage=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Just when I thought you couldnt top your last ridiculous post, you raise the benchmark. :hatsoff: The HC 2009 order decriminalized sex between consenting adults of the same gender. It didnt say anything about the other provisions of the act. The entire debate here has been about consensual sex, not the poor helpless men in India who are living constantly in fear from false cases lodged by scheming women or being sexually assaulted in this cruel matriarchal society. You need to know something on the topic before twisting yourself in some argument. Delhi HC would have given a decision, but it was never going to be binding on even any magistrate forget about judges of any higher court. Forget about HC, even an SC judgment which is against what is written in law book is not binding. Any HC or SC judgment is used as guidance when there is ambiguity in law books. In case of clear direction in law books, as in the case of IPC 377, all courts are bound to go by what is written in the code, not what HC or SC have ruled. Exactly that's what Supreme Court has rules. If you want to change the code, go to parliament, not to Supreme Court. HC didn't have any right to change the code. Again, you didn't answer my questions 1) How many of 2.5 million declared homosexuals have been booked under IPC 377 ? 2) Under which section police would have booked the alleged victim of raghavji's in the case that happened in MP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Sexual assault should be dealt under rape laws.Using 377 is like saying all sex is rape. What should be, could be is meaningless. Reality is that rape laws in India assume that only a woman can be victim of sexual assault. If you want to repeal 377, first bring a new law, then talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganeshran Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 You need to know something on the topic before twisting yourself in some argument. Delhi HC would have given a decision' date=' but it was never going to be binding on even any magistrate forget about judges of any higher court. Forget about HC, even an SC judgment which is against what is written in law book is not binding. Any HC or SC judgment is used as guidance when there is ambiguity in law books. In case of clear direction in law books, as in the case of IPC 377, all courts are bound to go by what is written in the code, not what HC or SC have ruled. Exactly that's what Supreme Court has rules. If you want to change the code, go to parliament, not to Supreme Court. HC didn't have any right to change the code.[/quote'] You are clutching at non existent straws. The Delhi HC order decriminalized consensual homosexuality on the grounds that it went against the fundamental right to equality also written in the same constitution and much more important. The law works on precedent. Before the SC's order, the Delhi HC's order was the precedent that consensual homosexuality is not a criminal offence. It is what would have been followed by any lower court, and if any magistrate did rule otherwise, the victim of this injustice could appeal to the high court citing its earlier judgment. I am sure the number is quite low, but that is irrelevant. The fact of the matter that people are being discriminated against for having consensual sex, something that should not be the business of the state in the first place. Again, your attempt to re-frame the debate in terms of sexual assault when it had nothing to do with the HC/SC order is nonsense. The HC judgement had no impact on the non consensual parts of the 377 section. Governing consensual and non consensual intercourse using the same archaic law is patently absurd. 377 could be used for male sexual assault victims even before the SC order, even though it cries for reform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 You are clutching at non existent straws. The Delhi HC order decriminalized consensual homosexuality on the grounds that it went against the fundamental right to equality also written in the same constitution and much more important. The law works on precedent. Before the SC's order, the Delhi HC's order was the precedent that consensual homosexuality is not a criminal offence. It is what would have been followed by any lower court, and if any magistrate did rule otherwise, the victim of this injustice could appeal to the high court citing its earlier judgment. I am sure the number is quite low, but that is irrelevant. The fact of the matter that people are being discriminated against for having consensual sex, something that should not be the business of the state in the first place. Again, your attempt to re-frame the debate in terms of sexual assault when it had nothing to do with the HC/SC order is nonsense. The HC judgement had no impact on the non consensual parts of the 377 section. Governing consensual and non consensual intercourse using the same archaic law is patently absurd. 377 could be used for male sexual assault victims even before the SC order, even though it cries for reform 1. Law works on precedences only when their is ambiguity in laws. Precedences don't matter if law is written in black and white. I am sure the number is quite low, but that is irrelevant Stop doing guess work. Nobody can be prosecuted if there is no complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganeshran Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 1. Law works on precedences only when their is ambiguity in laws. Precedences don't matter if law is written in black and white. The law is not written in black and white. It criminalizes sexual intercourse against the natural order. There is no mention of consensual homosexuality in the section even though the wording can be used to prosecute anyone having even consensual oral sex with another person of the same gender. The HC ruled that criminalizing homosexuality infringes the fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and hence cannot be used as grounds for prosecution. The SC gave its judgement based on its opinion and criminalizing homosexuality does not infringe on Article 14 and 15 and ruled that HC did not have the authority to pass its 2009 order. The whole judgement is based on the court's subjective stance whether Articles 14 and 15 are violated if an adult is committing a criminal act when having consensual sex with another adult. Stop doing guess work. Nobody can be prosecuted if there is no complain. Oh great, time to bring in more laws that infringe on human rights and it is OK as long as no one has been prosecuted yet. Lets ignore the fact that it perpetuates the stigma against homosexuals and keeps more people from coming out the closet. Party time for homophobic bigots in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Ganesh is absolutely right here. SC is the guardian of fundamental rights and Section 377 impinges on them. SC has the entire power to strike down such sections. While the formation of laws are the primary responsibility of the legislature, the SC has the powers to amend and strike down laws via ultra vires. Article 32 of the Indian constitution provides SC that right. In the famous, Minerva Mills vs Union of India case, 1980 the SC declared sections 4 & 55 of the 42nd amendment as unconstitutional. More recently in 2005, the SC struck down the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983. That said, the primary responsibility of enacting, amending and striking down laws rests with the legislature. The legislature has been elected to ensure that it represents the people. For long, the legislature has washed hands of the responsibility to ensure laws which are with current times and ensure that their subjects have appropriate fundamental rights. The Delhi HC 2009 judgment gave the legislature a second chance to look at Section 377 and make it relevant to current times. Once again the legislature decided to overlook the matter and did not do anything about it. The PIL to SC wouldn't have existed had the legislature done it's fundamental duties. Despite of all these facts, the SC judgment was requested the parliament to review Section 377 which it should have done in the first place rather than leave it to the SC. The SC judgment is disappointing but is not the end of the world for the LGBT community. It is up to their elected representatives to prove that they "represent the people" and not "rule them". On the political front, the Congress has given verbal support via words and a bit of action - orders are been sent to the police to not arrest/prosecute people due to sexual orientations. The BJP in its usual stand is non-committal asking the government to first come up with a proposal. The AAP has come out in clear support of the LGBT community and said that Section 377 violates fundamental rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Isn't ,ahem,playing with yourself technically same sex love? Chetan Bhagat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sachin34357 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Does anyone have link for yesterdays (12/12/13) Arnab's show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 as eexpected Soniaji is feeling sad about the verdicth.. Jaiho :yay::yay: Hows Rahul going to marry now ? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Is lgbt the new votebank in india? Why so much focus given on this these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuge Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 Isn't ,ahem,playing with yourself technically same sex love? Chetan Bhagat. NO !! Playing with someone else of SAME sex is ...hence technically he is wrong . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Is lgbt the new votebank in india? Why so much focus given on this these days Dude, seriously you need to stop politicizing every issue. This is in black and white, a question of right and wrong and human rights. What is the difference between us and scummy politicians then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Are jaahils the new vote bank in India. Going by statements of many Modi supporters, certainly looks that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Ganesh is absolutely right here. SC is the guardian of fundamental rights and Section 377 impinges on them. SC has the entire power to strike down such sections.Not as per the Constitution. Our constitution or CrPC does not recognize homosexuals as a group/class of people. Since Section 377 only prohibits certain sexual acts, the SC could not have invoked the Constitution to say that Section 377 is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Under the present constitutional scheme of things, arguing that Section 377 discriminates against homosexuals is like saying that anti-narcotics laws discriminate against opium addicts. It is the Parliament which has to step in and amend Section 377. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhunaeh Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Not as per the Constitution. Our constitution or CrPC does not recognize homosexuals as a group/class of people. Since Section 377 only prohibits certain sexual acts, the SC could not have invoked the Constitution to say that Section 377 is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Under the present constitutional scheme of things, arguing that Section 377 discriminates against homosexuals is like saying that anti-narcotics laws discriminate against opium addicts. It is the Parliament which has to step in and amend Section 377. Why does it prohibit certain sexual acts? What's the thinking behind it?Some acts are okay but some are not?Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Not as per the Constitution. Our constitution or CrPC does not recognize homosexuals as a group/class of people. Since Section 377 only prohibits certain sexual acts, the SC could not have invoked the Constitution to say that Section 377 is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Under the present constitutional scheme of things, arguing that Section 377 discriminates against homosexuals is like saying that anti-narcotics laws discriminate against opium addicts. It is the Parliament which has to step in and amend Section 377. Again - SC is the guardian of fundamental rights , according to the same constitution. Section 377 impinges on these fundamental rights. I have given past examples too on how SC has struck down laws (despite being present in the constitution) - you may want to read them before making further comment. Don't try to draw analogous examples which have little or no relation with the case at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts