#Section377 SD: Quoting Shaira Bano case states that, over emphasis on the doctrine of classification can harm the glory of Art. 14 (Equality). #LGBTQ
#Section377 SD: Talks about right to intimacy as under Art. 21 and goes onto quote a judgment from the South African Constitutional court, which says privacy allows you to maintain intimate relationships in your private life. #LGBTQ
#Section377 SD: Quoting Lawrence v. Texas - The liberty allowed to homosexual individuals gives them the right to choose their partners and continue to live life with dignity. #LGBTQ
#Section377 SD: Individuals who were shy and had not come out of the closet, felt empowered by the NAZ Foundation Judgment, but once the Supreme Court recriminalized section 377, it had a retrogative effect on society. #LGBTQ
#Section377 SD: Stating this, he asked the court to uphold constitutional rights of the #LGBTQ community.
#Section377 Sr. Adv. Chandra Uday Singh appearing on behalf of mental health professionals, continues for the petitioners. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Indu Malhotra J. intervened and clarified that even medical professionals do not maintain confidentiality and this prevents the homosexuals and bisexuals to come out. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Indu Malhotra J. continued to state that due to stigma in society, homosexuals and bisexuals are unable to express their true sexual orientation which has various ramifications for society. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Chandrachud J. Art. 15 and 21 imbibe the standard of reasonableness for contemporary society, which has also been recognized by parliament. #LGBTQ
#Section377 CJI enquired from the petitioners whether they had any further submissions apart from homosexuality not being a mental disorder but a natural variation in humans. #LGBTQ
#Section377 The CJI enquired whether in India any statute other than section 377 of IPC, criminalizes or treats homosexuality as a disease. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Adv. Menaka Guruswamy, stated that even under Domestic Violence Act, live in relationships are recognized, but protection is only afforded to opposite sex couples. #LGBTQ
#Section377 MG: She further clarified, that because homosexuals have not been allowed to exist, as per section 377, therefore there were no other laws required to prohibit their actions. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Chandrachud J. explained that over the years in Indian society we have created an environment which has lead to deep rooted discrimination against people of same sex, which in turn has impacted their mental health. #LGBTQ
#Section377 CS: Mental Health professionals request that the court articulate something positive on the lines of a doctine against discrimination to homosexuals. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Sr. Adv. Ashok Desai continues to argue on behalf of the petitioners. #LGBTQ
#Section377 AD: He refers to a book - 'Same sex love in India', which gives stories from not only ancient literature but also current literature, interviewing prominent members of society. #LGBTQ
#Section377 AD: He continues to state that section 377 has created utter chaos and stigma in Indian society and goes on to cite plight full experiences of the intervener. #LGBTQ
#Section377 AD: Humbly submitted that same sex relationships are not selfish as they do not exist to produce anything. #LGBTQ
#Section377 AD: The idea that India is better from the West is wrong and human history is uniform in its existence. #LGBTQ
#Section377 AD: He referred to @devduttmyth's book titled 'I am Divine' and also submitted copies with the bench. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Sr. Adv. KVV: Until now, arguments have revolved around - privacy and autonomy, but he wished to stress upon the right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of conscience, which are violated by section 377. #LGBTQ
#Section377 Hearing will resume after lunch.
#Section377 KVV: By tagetting conduct, section 377 actually targets identity. #LGBT persons cannot express themselves and Art. 19(1)(a) protects all rights to dress, choose partner and express their personality. Therefore section 377 violates freedom of speech.
#Section377 KVV: Section 377 is an unreasonable restriction, not covered by Art.19(2). And the fear imposed by section 377 violates freedom. #LGBTQ
#Section377 KVV: Section 377 offers evil basis to prevent artistic expression. He further cited a Gujarat HC case which challenged screening of a movie about homosexuality. #LGBTQ
#Section377 KVV: If in the core of my identity, I am not allowed to express my beliefs and represent my community, it restricts my freedom of conscience. #LGBTQ
#Section377 ASG Tushar Mehta commences arguments on behalf of the state. He submits that material cited by Sr. Adv. Ashok Desai is obscene and scandalous. #Section377
#Section377 TM: Submits that people tend to perceive things according to their orientation. #LGBTQ. CJI reacted to it stating that every myth has several layers.
#Section377 lawyer from the side of the respondents argue that homosexuality exists only in lower classes of animals, who have vegetative reproductive system. #LGBTQ
#Section377 CJI: We do not follow majoritarian morality we are guided by constitutional morality. #LGBTQ
#Section377 has been unnecessarily linked to transgenders. Carnal intercourse may not be performed using sexual organs. 377 uses the word carnal and not sexual. Argued by the respondents.
#Section377 mouth is an organ to eat and anus is an organ for excretion. These are not sexual organs. Therefore, such acts are against biology and against the order of nature - as argued by the respondents.
#Section377 - the point is that it requires penetration, therefore woman to woman acts are not prohibited under this section - as argued by respondents.
#Section377 Since the petitioners mentioned that 5-8% of the population are homosexuals, therefore we represent the majority of 95% of the population - argued by the respondents.
#Section377 The respondents questioned the Yogyakarta principles on the basis of who formed them and where did they come from.
#Section377 CJI reminded the respondents that the petitioners argued on fundamental rights and urged them to do the same. #LGBTQ
#Section377 The respondents submitted that many senior advocates refused to represent them due to human rights issues surrounding this debate.
#Section377 The respondents submit that theirs is the voice of dissent and parliament should only bring about amendment to the IPC if required.
#Section377 The respondents argued that too wide a reading of fundamental rights will violate the directive principles of state policy. They also said that no one can say that they have a right to commit a crime.
#Section377 The bench is adjourned for the day and arguments from respondents will continue on Tuesday next week.
