[Reader-list] Voices against HC Judgement emerge
A.K. Malik
akmalik45 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 4 21:12:11 IST 2009
Dear Mr Agarwal,
Section 377 of Indian Penal Code says that anyone having carnal sex against the law of nature shall be punishable with....( Exact language may be a little different).The court has struck down this for consenting adults doing this in private being violative of Art 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution.( I have still not read the judgement,this is what I remember from news reports)While for minors it is still there as they are not supposed to give consent before being 18 years of age.Criminality word is usually given for offences under the IPC.The consenting adults can be Male-Male or Male-Female. Such an act even with one's own wife was punishable.What Govt is required to do legally is to remove/delete this from IPC and include the balance part of carnal sex with minors under Sec 376 -Rape.
Illegal in practice would means something done against any law enacted by an Act of Parliament or against any Rules made under any law.Thus if one has an 11 month's lease as tenant with a landlord and the tenant does not give vacant possession after 11 months to landlord who does not extend the lease, then he is committing an illegal act but mind it, it is not criminal.There may be hundreds of things like this-possessing foreign exchange more than the specified limit etc.
No further benefits of any sorts accrue to such couples as marriage, adoption,inheritance etc.The only concession they would be getting is that they cannot now be proscuted for any such act in private.And still there is confusion whether the Delhi HC judgement is valid only for Delhi or for all over India. Normally the territorial jurisdiction of an HC is the State.
With kind 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: "A.K. Malik" <akmalik45 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Sarai List" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 1:35 PM
> Dear Mr Malik,
>
> Many thanks for your reply. My question is, if it is not
> criminal in 377 then what does 'illegal' mean in
> practice? Where is it deemed illegal, in which law, and what
> are its implications?
>
>
> I understand that there may be no sanction for marriage, or
> that gay partnerships may not qualify under various laws
> which sanction partnerships, or that of adoption etc., but
> is it the lack of rights to be recognized as a gay couple or
> is it something more?
>
>
> Also the limited plea was to make decriminalize under 377,
> which has been achieved by the HC Judgment, so what further
> amendment is needed by the Govt.? Sorry am confused. Where
> does 'legality' come in now?
>
>
> thanks
> ravi
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:47 AM,
> A.K. Malik <akmalik45 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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: <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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list