SC seeks government's response on plea against provision criminalising gay sex
New Delhi, April 23: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Central government's response on hotelier Kesav Suri challenging Indian Penal Code's Section 377 which criminalises any sort of homosexual activity and other forms of unnatural sex.
Suri, the Managing Director of Lalit Suri Hospitality group, is also a LGBT rights activists.
As the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud tagged Suri's plea with an earlier pending challenge to Section 377, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi urged the court to ask the government to respond to the plea.
"I want to know the Central government's stand on the constitutionality of Section 377. For one year, no reply has come," he told the bench.
The top court is already seized of the matter as it had on January 8 had said that it will re-examine its 2013 verdict upholding Section 377 that criminalises gay sex. The matter has been referred to a larger bench.
While agreeing to re-examine 2013 judgment, the court had on January 8, 2018, said observed "a section of people or individuals who exercise their choice should never remain in a state of fear".
Referring the matter to a larger bench, the court had on January 8 said: "Individual autonomy and also individual orientation cannot be atrophied unless the restriction is regarded as reasonable to yield to the morality of the Constitution."
"The morality that public perceives, the Constitution may not conceive of," the court had said making it clear that the "consent between two adults has to be the primary pre-condition. Otherwise the children would become prey, and protection of the children in all spheres has to be guarded and protected".
The top court's January 8 order had come on a petition by Sangeet Natak Akademi awardee Bharatnatyam dancer Navtej Singh Johar, celebrity chef Ritu Dalmia and others holding that Section 377 was "violative of fundamental rights under Article Article 21 (right to life)".
The top court by its 2013 order had set aside a Delhi High Court's July 2, 2009 verdict decriminalising gay sex.
NGO Naz Foundation which is seeking the scraping of Section 377 of IPC had moved the curative petition seeking a relook at its December 12, 2013 judgment and subsequent January 28, 2014 order in a review petition upholding Section 377.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BJP, JD(S) leaders helped win Channapatna bypoll: D K Shivakumar
Ramangara (PTI): Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Sunday hinted at cracks and squabbling within the BJP and the JD(S), as he gave credit to the leaders of these parties for the defeat of JD(S) candidate Nikhil Kumaraswamy in the Channapatna assembly bypoll.
Congress candidate C P Yogeeshwara won in Channapatna bypoll with a margin of 25,413 votes against his nearest rival and NDA candidate Nikhil Kumaraswamy, as results were announced on Saturday.
The Congress party swept all the three assembly constituencies in Karnataka, namely Channapatna, Sandur and Shiggaon, which went for bypolls.
Nikhil Kumaraswamy is the son of Union Minister H D Kumaraswamy and grandson of former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda. In September last year, JD(S) joined the NDA led by BJP.
“Many people from across the parties have helped us in this election (Channapatna). Congress had only 16,000 votes in the previous assembly election. It increased in the Lok Sabha election,” Shivakumar told reporters here.
According to him, many people from the JD(S) and the BJP supported the Congress. “If the BJP and the JD(S) leaders had not supported us directly or indirectly, we wouldn’t have got so many votes. I congratulate them,” Shivakumar, who is also the Congress state president, said.
He quipped that the JD(S), which had 19 seats in the Karnataka Assembly, has now reduced to 18.
Hailing the electorate, the Deputy CM said this was people’s verdict in favour of C P Yogeeshwara to develop Channapatna constituency.
There was no immediate reaction from the BJP or the JD(S) on it.
