This Article is From Dec 12, 2013

We have gone back to 1860: P Chidambaram on gay sex verdict

Finance Minister P Chidambaram

New Delhi: When the Delhi High Court gave its historic order in 2009 on decriminalising gay sex, P Chidambaram was the Home Minister and a member of Group of Ministers that decided not to challenge that ruling.

A day after the Supreme Court struck it down and restored the 1860 statute - Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that bans sex "against the order of nature" - Mr Chidambaram, in an exclusive interview to NDTV, said he was "extremely disappointed", adding the Supreme Court "has taken us back to 1860."

Calling the decision 'retrograde', the finance minister said knowledge of the human mind, psychology, physiology and genetics was poor in that ere, but it had changed since.

"Every LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) person has the right to have sex the way they want to and it is not for a court to say what's unnatural," he said.

When NDTV pointed out that Justice GS Singhvi, who headed the two-judge bench that upheld gay sex as a criminal offence, had blamed the government for not repealing Section 377, Mr Chidambaram said, "We were assertive as we told the open court that we were standing by the high court judgement and ready to assist the court. The reason we didn't change the law is because there was no need. The high court had already read down the criminality of gay sex between consenting adults."

The Attorney General will file a petition to review the judgement before a larger bench, said the minister, not ruling out legislation in the form of an Ordinance or Bill in Parliament.

Mr Chidambaram, then Law Minister Veerappa Moily and Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad had deliberated on the High Court's verdict in 2009 and while court proceedings saw differences in the affidavits of various ministries, Mr Chidambaram told NDTV, "There was unanimity against 377 and also there was consensus among my cabinet colleagues that 377 needed to be decriminalised".

The minister also added that while the top court may have said that gays were in a minority, their freedom still needed to be protected.
.