New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday was told that homosexuality and lesbian relationship were unnatural and against the order of nature as provided under the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Senior counsel Amarendra Saran told the court during the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the Delhi High Court's July 2, 2009 verdict holding that Section 377, which criminalises gay sex among consenting adults, was a violation of fundamental right.
The apex court bench of Justice GS Singhvi and Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya was told that the order of nature as mentioned in Section 377 of IPC had attained a "particular meaning and a traditional meaning" as understood by society.
Section 377 IPC which deals with unnatural offences reads: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with...."
Saran who appeared for the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) told the court that "right (life or personal liberty) under Article 21 is not absolute and can be controlled by law. The law must provide for reasonable procedure that is the only requirement under the code of criminal procedure".
He told the court that when Article 15 provides for no discrimination on ground of sex it means gender and not the sexual orientations.
He told the court that public morality was the same as constitutional morality and should not be seen as distinct in the instant case.
The court asked how could the test tube babies and surrogate mothers could be seen in the understood meaning of the order of nature. The court asked if in both cases it was in conformity with the order of nature and carnal intercourse as provided under Section 377 IPC.
The court would continue to hear the case today.
Senior counsel Amarendra Saran told the court during the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the Delhi High Court's July 2, 2009 verdict holding that Section 377, which criminalises gay sex among consenting adults, was a violation of fundamental right.
The apex court bench of Justice GS Singhvi and Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya was told that the order of nature as mentioned in Section 377 of IPC had attained a "particular meaning and a traditional meaning" as understood by society.
Saran who appeared for the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) told the court that "right (life or personal liberty) under Article 21 is not absolute and can be controlled by law. The law must provide for reasonable procedure that is the only requirement under the code of criminal procedure".
Advertisement
He told the court that public morality was the same as constitutional morality and should not be seen as distinct in the instant case.
Advertisement
The court would continue to hear the case today.
COMMENTS
Advertisement
Top OTT Releases This Week: Murder in Mahim, Doctor Who Season 14, and More Murder in Mahim Review: JioCinema Original Examines Homophobia Through the Lens of a Crime Drama Video Shows US Official Urinating On LGBT Nightclub Door, Sparking Outcry Vandalism At Kolkata Hospital Where Doctor Was Raped, Tear Gas Fired 150 mg Semen In Kolkata Doctor's Body, Suspect Gang-Rape: Parents To Court Starbucks' Indian-Origin CEO, Recently Fired, Never Worked Past 6 pm "Malicious Campaign": Top Kolkata Cop Blames Media For Hospital Vandalism 1.4 Million Afghan Girls Banned From Schools Since Taliban Return To Power US Judge Says "Monopolist" Google Can't Avoid App Store Reforms Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world.