The Supreme Court’s inhumane refusal to re-examine its verdict (“SC will not review judgment against homosexuality”, Jan. 29) has shown that the Indian judicial system is inequitable and discriminatory. Homosexuality is a trait defined by nature and manifests itself in the play of biological hormones that compel a person to become attracted to people of the same sex. By declaring same-sex activity illegal, the court showed callous disregard to the birthright of every human to be guaranteed freedom and equality irrespective of their sexual orientation. There is a clear constitutional infirmity in disregarding that right of a citizen. The country should take retrospective wisdom from the sociological changes that our freedom fighters effected by abolishing parochial practices such as Sati, child marriage, etc. A nation’s true progress is reflected in the views held by the courts of the land.
Vanshika Sharma Rai, Jamshedpur
It is ridiculous for the Congress party, which has been conveniently blind to the denial of caste rights, to espouse the rights of the LGBT community. The Supreme Court has not necessarily derided homosexuality; it has only held its criminalisation to be constitutionally valid. In any case, the Indian ethos is against perversions such as homosexuality, which runs counter to the traditional institution of the family. Sodomy is a heinous sin, according to many ancient literatures. Of course, such consensual perversions have always been practised away from the public gaze and there is no reason to believe that formal proscription will curb the practice in the future. The Supreme Court has taken into consideration the gamut of opinions and reiterated its ruling. Above all, let us not be in a haste to import the counter-productive ideas of the neo-secular West into the land of the Vedas and saintly personages.
D. Jawahar Raj, Tirunelveli
It is not correct to bunch transsexual people with homosexual people. Transgenders deserve our sympathy for nature has played a cruel joke on them.
B.B.B. Behera, Kakinada
It is a dangerous prospect that some communal forces might be steering the views in the political arena towards classifying sexual orientation as unnatural. To deem a certain human proclivity as unnatural is to arrogate an understanding of the evolutionary process, an argument which the proponents of criminalisation presumptuously take recourse to. Perhaps, the day scientists discover the extant evolutionary purpose of homosexuality, the unfounded discrimination will cease. The right to decide on a partner lies with consenting individuals alone.
Ravi Rana, New Delhi
The Indian Constitution provides a clear demarcation between the jurisdictions of the courts and Parliament (“Redeeming the Supreme Court”, Jan. 28). The Supreme Court’s upholding of the stance taken in the Koushal verdict is constitutionally valid. It is Parliament that has the power to change laws. The court cannot be expected to decide to overturn a law on the flimsy grounds that it was enacted a long time ago. It is futile for the aggrieved LGBT community and gay rights activists to rail against the judicial system. They must approach the legislature with a plea to amend the existing law.
Nishant Choudhary, Visakhapatnam
What is the rationale behind the provision to allow the executive to hear a mercy petition from a convict who has been sentenced to death by the due process of law? Is it anything other than an opportunity offered to the executive to sit in judgment of the decision of the highest court in the land? Is it not meant to allot a few individuals the discretionary power to shower their favour on a chosen few and deny it to others? Either way, the core pillars of modern society — “rule of law” and “equality before justice” — stand trashed.
G. Narayanasamy, New Delhi