[Reader-list] Voices against HC Judgement emerge

[A.K. Malik]

Hi Mr Aggarwal,
                I try to reply to your first point:
Decriminalizing means something which was earlier criminal/illegal and has now been made non criminal usually by an action not enacted by law.
Legalising would mean making something legal by law enacted by an act of Parliament.In the current HC order scenerio means while this section in the statute makes it still illegal/criminal, no crimnal action can be initiated in view of the HC order.If this section is upheld by the SC, it again becomes illegal.While an enactment by Parliament making it legal means there is no requirement of a  court order as per se no criminal action can at all be initiated.
Regards
(A.K.MALIK)


--- On Sat, 7/4/09, Ravi Agarwal <ravig64 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Ravi Agarwal <ravig64 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Voices against HC Judgement emerge
> To: "Rakesh Iyer" <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 5:56 AM
> Dear all,
> I shall be grateful if someone can explain to me:
> 1. Difference between 'de criminalizing ' and 'legalising?
> 2. Now that the HC has read down 377, what is the amendment
> required by the
> Govt? except to shift the remaining provisions under 377 to
> another place as
> suggested by the HC order itself.  But will this
> impact the provision struck
> down.
> 3. I understand the SC can strike down the HC order (which
> is very strongly
> argued and hence not easy to strike down, I think.) But
> beyond going to the
> SC what is the govt reqired to do?
> 
> I will thank you for some clear understanding to help me.
> 
> Best
> ravi agarwal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:09 AM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Religious leaders have no right to threaten govts.
> Anyway, who cares about
> > these. I feel we should have a referendum to find out
> whether these
> > so-called hoodlums have any backing from the society,
> for that will be the
> > end of their useless positions and their right to take
> 'decisions on behalf
> > of the community'. The religious leaders should first
> go and study their
> > own
> > religious texts and books before making useless
> comments. And anyways,
> > religious leaders should be thankful we are a liberal
> democracy, otherwise
> > if we were secular by Western standards, their useless
> antics would have
> > earned them the ire of the state (as Sarkozy showed
> recently by declaring
> > that Muslim women would not be allowed to wear the
> veil. Where are these
> > leaders then to raise their voice? In toilets?)
> >
> > The right to existence of people is beyond religion,
> and people came before
> > religion. And people's rights are more important than
> such religious
> > rights.
> > Therefore, the govt. has the responsibility to accept
> this HC verdict and
> > annul the IPC 377 which prohibits homosexuality. And
> if the govt. wants to
> > appease the religious leaders, they should remember
> the 1987 scenario, when
> > both the Muslim and Hindu communities were sought to
> be appeased, and what
> > happened after that.
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>