'Homosexuality is not an aberration but a variation': This was the statement of Justice Indu Malhotra, who was the only woman judge hearing the case on Section 377. Last Tuesday when the hearing in the case at Supreme Court concluded, students across the colleges in the city felt the same. They say it's high time that the archaic law criminalising homosexuality is reformed.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court will need to focus on passing the judgement in view of constitutional morality and not on majoritarian morality. Decriminalising section 377 is a progressive step ahead to overturn the judgement in 2013 and provide constitutional rights to citizens irrespective of gender and sexual orientation.
Suman Saurabh Mohanty, XIMB
People should be allowed to be who they are and love who they want to love. It's not hurting anyone. They have an inalienable right to be happy. It's love that needs to be 'constitutionally recognized'. Section 377 acts as a big impediment for the LGBT community. We can agree that this is an archaic law framed long before our times. We are far away from passing laws that would actually protect, legalise and bring about true equality for LGBT people. But decriminalising section 377 will be a major step towards it. Moreover, Indian society still has to contend with the deep and insidious stigma of being queer.
Choudhury Shweta Das, CET
I feel it is very difficult to understand the real meaning of the ‘order of nature'. I strongly feel criminalising homosexuality will not only be a black spot on the constitutional rights given to all the citizens like the right to life and privacy but also be on the democracy. Homosexuality refers to attraction towards one's own sex. The whole concept of attraction and love have come from nature and I feel it nowhere disrupts the ‘order of nature.’ I think it's headed in the right direction. The Supreme Court is all in to support the liberties of the LGBTQ community.
Ayushi Singh, ITER college
I think decriminalization of Article 377 should have been much before. There are literally no sensible arguments against it. And very few arguments which exist are at best frivolous. The basic argument that it is against the order of nature is simply wrong. How do Dolphins procreate? The other argument that marriages must be consummated is an early-era view that has somehow still lived on. Marriage is about love between two individuals. The gender shouldn't matter.
The other point is that "it affects only a few people. Why bother?" Which is logically wrong. Because if so, there would be no Civil Rights movement. No Black Rights movement. The constitution protects the rights of every individual There's another argument that it's a choice. Well, so what? The constitution protects the Right to freedom of Choice.
Siddhant Guru, NIT Rourkela
I hope some focus will be put on male sexual abuse. If 377 is shown the door, the only law we have which effectively acts as a punishment for male sexual abuse(that too, exclusively sodomy) will go and hence, reformations in other laws like Article 376(the punishment for rape) have to be done against sexual abuse. It will finally help us shift our focus from the basic fight for freedom of love and we will talk about homosexual marriage.
Bijaya Biswal, Medical student
Homosexuality is as natural as bisexuality. It's is gifted not acquired, so to criminalise homosexuality means to criminalise nature. Section 377 is an orthodox law which has always interfered in the sexual and love life of people having mutual consent. It's harsh, cruel and a criminal offense in itself to criminalise love and sex. SC has started to rethink this matter and it seems the law will move away from our bedroom very soon.
Rohan Yadav, student
