CruzLines
A legal blog offering excursions into the Constitution, equality law, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
Delhi High Court Curtails Sodomy Law
"Times are changing for the better"
02 July 2009
Today the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi sharply limited Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 377, which prohibits "carnal intercourse" and has come to be known as the "unnatural offences" section, was facially neutral but in practice targeted LGBT persons. The Court held it unconstitutional insofar as it criminalized consensual sex acts between adults in private. In closing, the Court wrote:"If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be
underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of
'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution
reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society,
nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that
Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every
aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for
everyone. Those perceived by the majority as “deviants' or
'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.
"Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding,
such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-
discrimination. ... In our view, Indian
Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law
to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the
LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is anti-
thesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality
which will foster the dignity of every individual."
Posted by Cruz at 7:06 AM | Link | 0 comments
Categories: sodomy India human rights respect for private life sexual orientation gender identity LGBTI rights
Professor David Cruz is a constitutional law expert focusing on civil rights and equality issues, including equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Categories
- California Marriage Equality Act (1)
- California Supreme Court (12)
- European Convention on Human Rights (2)
- free speech (1)
- gender identity (3)
- human rights (4)
- India (1)
- intersex (1)
- LGBT right (1)
- LGBTI rights (2)
- products liability (1)
- public forum (1)
- Section 5 (1)
- sexual orientation (6)
- sovereign immunity (1)
- strip search (1)
- substantive due process (1)
- Ten Commandments (1)
- United Nations (1)
- Williams Institute (1)
- Yogyakarta Principles (1)
- age discrimination (1)
- Barack Obama (1)
- boycotts (1)
- California Constitution (3)
- California Supreme Court (5)
- conferences (1)
- Connecticut Supreme Court (1)
- Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (4)
- District of Columbia (3)
- domestic partnership (4)
- Don't Ask Don't Tell (1)
- Eighth Amendment (2)
- employment discrimination (2)
- equal protection (9)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- House of Lords (1)
- Iowa Supreme Court (1)
- Japan (1)
- Maine (3)
- marriage (38)
- marriage recognition (10)
- New Hampshire (1)
- New York (1)
- Portugal (1)
- preemption (1)
- Prop 8 (24)
- public opinion (3)
- race discrimination (1)
- rape (2)
- respect for private life (2)
- sex (2)
- sexual orientation discrimination (3)
- sodomy (1)
- statutory rape (1)
- Sweden (1)
- U.S. Supreme Court (7)
- Vermont (1)
Archives
- November 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (5)
- April 2009 (5)
- March 2009 (6)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (5)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (3)
- June 2008 (5)
- May 2008 (7)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (1)
