Right to dignity

AN archaic law introduced under the British way back in the 1860s should ideally have no place in the 21st century, especially in nations that lay claim to liberal ethos. Yet, the Indian polity continues to tolerate Section 377 of the CrPC that criminalises homosexuality and penalises gay sex. Thankfully, the Supreme Court seems inclined to revisit its rather regressive 2013 verdict and the law that criminalises what it calls “unnatural offence”. The 2013 verdict had left a bad taste in our collective mouths. The apex court too has felt the odour of petty intolerance. It is a welcome shift as is its observation heartening: “Societal morality changes from age to age. Law copes with life and accordingly change takes place.”

 Over the years, Section 377 has tested our morals and manners. In 2009, the Delhi High Court order struck down Section 377, bringing much cheer to the beleaguered LGBTQ community. It was reinstated in 2013 by the apex court. That was a setback for not just gay rights activists but all those who care for personal freedom and care to uphold the Right to Privacy, now a fundamental right. Yet, ironically, even many educated people, including some law-makers, erroneously believe that homosexuality is a genetic flaw or an aberration and that those who flaunt their “unnatural” sexuality should be punished. That is a medieval mindset at work. 

If the Right to Privacy has to be read correctly and adhered to in letter and spirit, society and the laws can’t discriminate against individuals for their chosen sexual preferences. Brute majority’s view can’t be deemed — ipso facto — as right or even natural. Same-sex love should not be painted in broad brush strokes of sordidness or viewed through the myopic lens of morality. A person’s dignity, Right to Privacy and sexual choice fall in the same continuum and can’t be viewed in isolation or divorced from each other. Hopefully, a larger Bench will bring India in line with other modern societies.