One of the the petitioners said "In the previous round there were a couple of curative petitions. Let those matters be heard along with this petition" #Section377 #LGBTQI @TheDeltaApp
Rights protected under Article 21, asking for protection. Principal question - correctness of the existing judgment. - Sr. Adv Mukul Rahotgi #Section377 #LGBTQ @TheDeltaApp
Provision is bad - notwithstanding society conditions. Various jurisdictions - Nepal, America, Candada etc. had struck down such a law - #Section377 #LGBTQ @TheDeltaApp
In the Privacy judgment, Justice Chandrachud has said that #Section377 judgment - Kaushal judgment is wrong. #LGBTQ @TheDeltaApp
Sr. Adv. Mukul Rahotgi is taking recourse to various American and Indian judgments to support why #Section377 should be struck down. #LGBTQ @TheDeltaApp
MR: He will be touching upon issues under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar will be touching upon Article 19 of the Constitution of India and certain select European case laws.
MR : He'll be discussing the following the following judgments - NALSA transgender judgment, Puttuswamy privacy judgment and NAZ foundation Delhi HC judgment.
MR: this case is not about choice, we'll be not dealing with gender. We'll be dealing with orientation. You're born with it. Whether male or female.
Orientation is innate and inborn. It's not a matter of choice. This is a result of research in the western world. It has something to do with genes.
377 deals with the order of nature and sexual activity should deal with procreation. Victorian principles.
Justice Nariman : the order of nature is a relative concept and for this sexual minority it is the order of nature.
MR: In NALSA, the rights of the transgender community were recognized. Similarly the rights of other factions of the LGBT community should also be recognized.
MR: Whether a pre constitution law which continues under #Section377 should be adjudged with the same principles as those enacted post the Constitution of India.
MR: Yesterday : The IPS, recognized that same sex activity is not a disease.
MR: 377 is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The effect of 377 is by ans large on men. Though it is sex neutral. But effect on gay men. Effect test is important.
MR: Shreya Singhal discusses order of nature. Which would be relative and will keep on changing. A law which may be valid 50 years ago may today be turned invalid over the passage of time.
MR: He requested the bench to have a quick look at section 377.
MR: 377 - Of unnatural offences. On the face of it, sexual acts between - man and man, man and women. Conventional sex also (man and woman) if not penile - vaginal will fall under section 377
MR: Discussing section 375 - Rape has several descriptions - important to note, that this is all non consensual between man and woman. Therefore consensual will not be a part of 376 and shall accordingly will not be a part of 377.
MR: Naz Foundation Judgment - very well researched judgment. He is reading excerpts from that judgment.
MR: UOI did not file an appeal to the Supreme Court judgment. They filed a review petition instead.
MR: He is continuing to quote the NAZ Foundation Judgment. Quoting paragraphs - 20, 22 and 34.
MR: Right to life includes right to human dignity. Our case is about perception about this minority. In matters of employmentb, living etc.
MR: We are not talking about gender. The question is about orientation.
Tushar Mehta Adv. (UoI) - this case should be restricted to section 377 and not other matters like - inheritance, cohabitation and other rights.
MR: I'm not discussing about marriage. That is outside the purview of this case.
Justice Chandrachud: this discussion should not be restricted to orientation and should also touch upon gender issues.
CJI: This discussion needs to be restricted to 377. And another lis will need to instituted for other rights like - inheritance, cohabitation, live in etc.
MR: Do not restrict us to 377. Lives will go on.
Justice Nariman: Let's discuss the scope of the fundamental rights.
MR: Still quoting the NAZ Foundation Judgment. Discussing various principles around why same sex intercourse should be decriminalized.
MR: Cites - Lawrence vs. Texas (American case law) discussing principles why same sex intercourse is natural.
Thread continues here:
