The Impulses and their selection - in the matter of Homosexuality

The Delhi High Court in it's Judgment on the sensitive subject of Homosexuality had, in July 2009, upheld that a part of the provision in the Article which laid down that having sexual relation between two individuals of same sex even if by mutual consent is illegal, is a violation of certain articles in the constitution that lay down the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India of an Individaual and hence ultra vires. The Judgment declared that ..." We declare that section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 21 [Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty], 14 [Right to Equality before Law] and 15 [Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex or Place of Birth] of the Constitution."

The Religio Political Leaders had thoroughly misunderstood the verdict & had stepped in with their comments and fervent reaction then as if the Court by virtue of the judgement had stepped into their turf. Article 377 had termed such acts of homosexuality a punishable offence to the extent of punishable by either Life Imprisonment or Imprisonment upto Ten Years with Fine. Like many of our enactments the precursor of this provision was a provision introduced by Lord Macaulay nearly a hundred and fifty years ago in the Penal Code that carnal attraction and intercourse by and between individuals against the laws of the nature was a severly punishable offence.

Surprisingly it is not mere moral policing, but considered in the perspective of today's world it is  much more than that. It is in effect peeking into or behind the closed doors of an individual's bedroom in the intimate matter of what a person does or does not do on sexual preferences.

And what is more annoying and laughably frustrating is the argument given by social moral police that the judgement in effect would promote the demonstration of such preferences and thereby vitiate the family values and age long tenets on which the foundation of family lies. Primitive classical apprehension of the section of society that prefers to live in the cocoon of what they term as fundamental behaviorial tenets.

The myth of such argument is self defeating as it admits that the preference exists, and because of that they fear that the judgement would promote the "Demonstration" and at the same time makes effort to deny it's existence like the Ostrich pushing its face in sand by trying to say that don't let the matter have a rightful place in the domain of civility. Rather let it be concealed and suppressed to let it become a sore and then take the primeval action of Macaulay era by ostracizing the protagonists.

A PIL plea by Delhi-based non-government organisation Naz Foundation had been filed alleging that Section 377 provision criminalizing sexual acts between consenting adults in private violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The sane and rational judgment declares that "the provisions of Section 377 will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors." 

Do we or do we not want a society that has the right approach of selecting to agree or disagree on issues in life without the sanctimonious acrimony from the quarters that have a stake in such policing and the instruments of Society that have a market in such environment. After all we are a civilized lot.