History owes apology to LGBTs: Justice Indu Malhotra
New Delhi, Sep 6 : Asserting that criminalising consensual sexual acts between persons of same gender was violative of their fundamental rights, Supreme Court Justice Indu Malhotra on Thursday said that history owed an apology to the Indian LGBTs for "delay in providing redressal" for their sufferings over the centuries.
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code - which criminalised consensual sexual acts of same-gender adults in private -- is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, the Judge ruled.
"History owes an apology... for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they suffered through the centuries", Justice Indu Malhotra said in a separate judgment while concurring with the one pronounced by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
The community was "compelled to live a life full of fear of reprisals and persecution, on account of ignorance of the majority to recognise that homosexuality is a completely natural condition, part of a range of human sexuality."
Pointing out that the LGBTs deserve to live a life unshackled from the shadow of being 'unapprehended felons', Justice Malhotra said: "The mis-application of this provision (Section 377) denied them the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution."
She said that it (discrimination) infringed the right to non-discrimination under Article 15, and the right to live a life of dignity and privacy guaranteed by Article 21.
Justice Malhotra said that sexual orientation is innate to a human being and is an important attribute of one's personality and identity. "... LGBT persons have little or no choice over their sexual orientation."
She said LGBT persons, like heterosexual persons, are entitled to "privacy", and the right to lead a "dignified existence, without fear of persecution."
"The right to life and liberty would encompass the right to sexual autonomy, and freedom of expression," she said in her judgment.
In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday decriminalised homosexuality between consenting adults by declaring as "manifestly arbitrary" Section 377 of the IPC, which was welcomed by the LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, intersex and queer/questioning) community and others.
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.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
