Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra, Rohinton Nariman, A.M Khanwillkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ. began the hearing on Day-4 of the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC.
Advocate Manoj George representing two Christian groups and supporting Section 377 stated that ‘Section 377 is constitutionally valid’.
He said that the “carnal intercourse criminalised is b/w man and man, b/w woman and woman, b/w man and animal or between woman and animal”.
“If Your Lordships says there is nothing called “order of nature” with or without consent, then the entire Section will go”, submitted Manoj George.
DY Chandrachud J. intervenes and asks under Article 14, is there anything called order of nature?
Nariman J. points to Yogyakarta principles stating “Don’t forget, we have already expanded sex to include transgender“.
CJ Dipak Misra: ‘Whatever the principles stated in Yogyakarta principles, if it fits into our constitutional framework, it may be referred as well’.
“We have already expanded the scope of the meaning of sex. You need to respect the natural process of law, if any sex is against the order of nature, it doesn’t lead to procreation”: Nariman J.
‘Anything to be done with Section 377 IPC should have been done by the legislature not by the Court’: Advocate George
‘If we are convinced that it is unconstitutional, it is our duty to strike it down’: Nariman J.
CJ Dipak Misra: If Section 377 IPC goes away entirely, there will be anarchy. We are solely on consensual acts between man-man, man-woman. Consent is the fulcrum here! You cannot impose your sexual orientation on others without their consent.
Advocate George concluded his arguments on the note that ‘If anything needs to be done, it should be done by legislature’.
Senior Advocate Radhakrishnan began with his arguments by referring to Apex Court’s judgment in Govt. (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, in regard to the constitutional morality aspect.
Radhakrishnan also pointed out that ‘Homosexuals spread sexually transmitted diseases like HIV’.
Chandrachud J.: The cause of sexually transmitted diseases is not sexual intercourse.
Advocate Harshvir Pratap Sharma: ‘We know there is corruption everywhere. Will we abolish the police because it is corrupt? Likewise, should we strike down a law because it affects a few?’
Suresh Kumar Koushal’s lawyer submitted that ‘Section 377 needs to be retained as it is.’
Supreme Court reserved the judgment on the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC, 1860 by concluding the hearing for today.