Section 377

[vebk]

Ok, so how does this play out then ?

Does the Naz Foundation have to petition the same case in the different State High Courts ie fight the same battle repeatedly ?

or do the judges of the various courts just make ex parte decisions

Well one way of doing it would be to file a PIL in every High Court, but needless to say that would take a lot of time, effort and money. And on top of that you may actually end up getting differing judgments. Honestly, I don't know why this wasn't a PIL in the Supreme Court to begin with.

Here's what I think will happen:

[*]One of the Respondents will appeal in the Supreme Court, which will have to decide the matter once and for all.
[*]It doesn't go to appeal, but in the event s. 377 is being used against gay people in some other states, the aggrieved persons would go to the High courts of those other states, and then if everyone of them confirms the Delhi High court judgment, well and good. Otherwise it goes to appeal to the Supreme Court. Back to Point No. 1.
[/list]
I honestly, don't see how this won't go to the Supreme Court especially since the Respondents in the Delhi HC case included some private individuals and organizations and not just the government. The private individuals and organizations are obviously stubborn on their fundamentalist views, and am sure are really angry and bitter right now. So even if the Government does not wish to go to the Supreme Court, I think they will be dragged in forcibly by these private individuals. (Which incidentally is probably the most politically favourable move for our flip-flopping politicians).

 

[blr_p]

Yeah, just going by the response here the issue has very cleany split people into two camps.Final showdown at the Supreme court it is Wonder what the grounds for the appeal will be tho , as the counter arguments already offered by the MHA seems to parallel very well with the objections already raised in this thread. And all those objections were successfully countered so are presumably not viable anymore.

 

[vebk]

Yeah, the appellants have a steep hill to climb for sure. They did a terrible job arguing the case and their arguments were 99% prejudice and bigotry, and not scientific and rational arguments.

 

[blr_p]

Or will the PM act decisively and direct his Solictor General to repeal the relevant sections of the 377 and be done with it ?..instead of appeasing. He is in a tricky situation.The fight is between his Health minster & Home minister (which also includes the opposition leader & ultra conservative religous leaders).Lets say it goes to supreme court and wins and is recognised across the land.We already have the precedent of a PM overturning a supreme court ruling !!Anything is possible in India

 

[Sahyadri]

Homosexuality = Unnatural Sexual Tendency. :readtherules:

 

[agantuk]

Question is who decides what is natural and what is not. The wishes of a majority can be considered as 'natural'. I doubt if homosexuality is intentional, it should be something that comes from within.

 

---

[blr_p]

Homosexuality = Unnatural Sexual Tendency. :readtherules:

Leaving out the sex bit, i've always found lefties to be a bit unnatural don't you

I mean nearly everyone is right handed.

But i was told they cant help it leasehelp:

 

[warthog]

I was watching a news channel where baba ramdev said that this can be cured by practicing pranayam.
I support that.

----------

btw this is a great topic to address the diff btw democracy and republic.This judgement proves that India is a Republic.The rights of the minority is respected with majority.

amen

 

[blr_p]

Not only that but it has explained a lot about privacy and its limits as well.I think I have figured out the game plan of the the religous parties opposed to this ruling.But first lets consider the current situationIllegal------------>Neutral------------->LegalThis current ruling moves gays from illegal to the center spot by decriminalising.Now to move from Neutral to legal implies it becomes illegal to speak against gays.Religous parties now have the monopoly on preaching against gays as the govt. has just absolved itself from this responsiblity.I don't think the religous parties consider gays to be criminals, they might condemn them but they don't prescribe any specific punishment like there is for criminals. They are not too bothered about the neutral position as it does not change anything for them. So I don't see them trying to specifically appeal this ruling and trying to reverse it.No, the fight for the religous parties is to retain the right to condemn gays and all efforts will be made to obstruct going to the legal position ie they oppose legalisation of gays. And to do this they will employ (amongst others) a very effective tactic : FEAR Lets see how this shapes up, the end goal is to become legal for gays.Funny how language works ie not illegal does not imply legal, it just means no man's land, neither legal nor illegal but not illegal in maths is a dbl negative which we know is positive.

 

[vebk]

I think we mix up the words legal illegal criminal too much. What this judgment has done is that it has made homosexual consensual acts non-criminal. That's it.Sahyadri, thanks for your valuable input. I am at awe with your remarkable ability to grasp what is natural and what is not. I am also at awe with your amazing ability to condemn a whole group of people without perhaps having interacted with any of them, or understanding anything about homosexuality. It takes a particular kind of bravery to spew prejudiced hatred while exposing your ignorance and arrogance to the world, and for that the world salutes you. Also, Bigots United of India sends their salutations to you and invites you to join them as their messiah. For your beautiful and immensely comprehensive evaluation of human culture, I offer you the reward of a formula, albeit nowhere as elegant as yours:Homophobe = Irrational Prejudiced Hating Bigot.-------------------------Also, can we please agree that the majority of religious leaders are basically old world politicians who in their quest for power use prejudice and hatred as a publicity tool? Somehow every one of them forgets the basic tenets of almost all religions (if not all) - love your neighbour, respect humanity, do good and not evil, live and let live, make just not your lives happy but those of others etc. etc. Somehow "homosexuals are unnatural and evil and deserve to die" doesn't seem to fit in with this ethos.