December 11, 2013 (Washington DC) -- Leaders of
the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) announced their disappointment today with
the Indian Supreme Court's decision to uphold Section 377 of the Indian
Constitution, which criminalizes consensual homosexual conduct. In
2009, the New Delhi High Court rejected Section 377 of the Indian Constitution,
a remnant code from the British Era, and decriminalized same-sex relationships.
The Indian Supreme Court, known generally for expanding civil rights,
chose to defer to the Indian Parliament to reform the provision.
"No law should interfere in a consensual relationship
of two individuals behind closed doors," said Harsh Voruganti, Associate
Director of Public Policy at HAF. "We had hoped that the Indian
Supreme Court would have upheld the lower court's progressive decision."
Section 377, based on arcane, Victorian mores, does not
reflect the understanding of many contemporary Hindu lay and spiritual
leaders who emphasize the teachings of every individual's inherent
divinity -- be they heterosexual or homosexual, Voruganti added.
Adherents of other faiths have similarly expressed disagreement with the
Supreme Court ruling.
"The essential core of Hindu teachings is that an
individual's value is not based on his or her sexual orientation, but on one's
ability to transcend the body, senses, and ego," said Swaminathan
Venkataraman, HAF's Director of India Strategic Relations. "And
unlike many interpretations of Abrahamic scripture, Hinduism does not provide a
fundamental spiritual reason to reject or ostracize homosexuals,"
continued Venkataraman, also the primary author of the widely acclaimed
article, Hinduism and Homosexuality, which appeared in Trikone magazine in
2009.
Hindu teachings about mutual respect and dignity have
informed HAF's public policy positions, noted Voruganti. "HAF has
repeatedly taken a stand in support of equal rights for LGBT individuals in the
United States,
from joining an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down
the Defense of Marriage Act to advocating for the passage of the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act in the US Senate."
India: Supreme Court Ruling Undermines LGBT Rights
Parliament Should Promptly Amend ‘Sodomy’ Law to Ensure Equality
(New York, December 12, 2013) – The ruling by India’s Supreme Court on December 11, 2013, that
same-sex conduct between consenting adults remained a criminal offense is a
setback for the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT)
people, Human Rights Watch said today. The court reversed a landmark 2009 Delhi
High Court decision that a colonial-era law infringed upon fundamental rights
provided under the constitution.
The Indian government should immediately seek to decriminalize adult consensual
same-sex relations, Human Rights Watch said. Currently, same-sex relations are
subject to section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which punishes “carnal
intercourse against the order of nature” with up to life in prison. The Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of section 377 and ruled that the Delhi High
Court decision was “legally unsustainable.” It said it was now up to the
legislature “to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section
377” of the penal code.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is a deeply disappointing setback for basic rights
to privacy, equality, and non-discrimination,” said Graeme Reid, director of the LGBT rights program at Human
Rights Watch. “Now the government should do what it should have done in the
first place and decriminalize consensual same-sex relations between adults.”
A nongovernmental organization, the Naz Foundation, had filed a petition
against section 377 in 2001. In 2009, the Delhi High Court accepted its request
to decriminalize consensual same-sex conduct between adults. Various
individuals and groups, most of them religious conservatives, appealed the High
Court verdict.
The Indian government had not appealed the Delhi High Court ruling. In 2012,
the attorney general told the Supreme Court that the government found no “legal
error” in the High Court decision and accepted it. The Naz Foundation could
still appeal the Supreme Court judgment by filing a review petition, said
Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising.
The Naz Foundation judgment had become a reference point for many discussions
both in schools and in public debates across the country, said Arvind Narrain,
a lawyer with Alternative Law Forum in India. “It has unlocked spaces for
openness to LGBT issues, lending a certain legitimacy to demand for more
positive rights such as anti-discriminatory measures and socio-economic
benefits, among others,” Narrain said.
A Supreme Court ruling upholding the High Court decision would have had a
positive influence in the courts and legislatures of other former British
colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean that have nearly identical “sodomy”
laws, Human Rights Watch said. Although these laws are rarely enforced, they
legitimize police extortion, violence, and discrimination.
“Section 377 is a legacy of British rule and it is disturbing that a
postcolonial democratic state like India would hold on to colonial
morality codes that blatantly violate human rights,” Reid said. “India should
join countries like Australia and New Zealand that have already abolished this
colonial-era sodomy law that they too inherited, and take the lead on ending
such discrimination.”
Colonies and countries that retain versions of the British sodomy law
include:
• In Asia and the Pacific: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Western Samoa. (Governments that inherited the same British law, but have abolished it since include Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, and New Zealand.)
• In Africa: Botswana, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Sudan,Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Eleven former British colonies in the Caribbean also retain sodomy laws derived from a different British model than the one imposed on India.