“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.” — Lynn Lavner
“I don't understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians. Shouldn't we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one's partner regardless of sexual orientation?” —Al Gore
“For a long time I thought I wanted to be a nun. Then I realized that what I really wanted to be was a lesbian.” — Mabel Maney
“Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are at risk every day of their lives.” —Jeffrey Montgomery LGBT activist
“My lesbianism is an act of Christian charity. All those women out there praying for a man, and I'm giving them my share.” —Rita Mae Brown
“If you had told me 28 years ago that the largest organization in the world touching the lives of gays and lesbians would be a church, I would not have believed you.” —Troy Perry, Metropolitan Community Church founder
“My lesbianism is an act of Christian charity. All those women out there praying for a man, and I'm giving them my share.” —Rita Mae Brown
“Wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved with sexual relationships with men, that is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice on the part of the governed.” —Plato
“Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are at risk every day of their lives.” —Jeffrey Montgomery (1953–) LGBT activist
“There are some people in this world that believe being gay is a choice. It's not a choice, we're born this way.” —Lady Gaga
“You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse.” —Sharon Underwood
Extract of the 172nd Report on Review of Rape Laws by Law Commission of India
Mr. B.P.JEEVAN REDDY forwarded the 172nd Report on Review of Rape Laws to Shri Ram Jethmalani , the then Minister for Law, Justice & Co.Affairs, Government of India.
In Writ Petition (Crl.) No.33 of 1997, the petitioner, “Sakshi” an organisation interested in the issues concerning women, approached the Supreme Court of India inter alia for directions concerning the definition of the expression “sexual intercourse” as contained in section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court by its order dated 13th January, 1998 directed the Law Commission to indicate its response with respect to the issues raised in the above writ petition. The Commission filed an affidavit dated 28.7.1998 setting out in extenso the portions of its 156th Report on the Indian Penal Code dealing with the issues in question. In the said Report, the then Law Commission (14th Law Commission) did not agree with the viewpoint of the writ petitioners except in certain minor respects. The Supreme Court was inclined to agree with the submissions of the writ petitioners that the contents of the 156th Report did not deal with the precise issues raised in the writ petition.
On the directions of the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner drew up a note containing the precise issues involved in the petition. The Commission was asked by the Hon’ble Court by its order dated 9th August, 1999 to examine the said issues afresh. The Court observed that the issues needed a thorough examination. By the said order dated 9th August, 1999, the Hon’ble Court requested the Law Commission “to examine the issues submitted by the petitioners and examine the feasibility of making recommendations for amendment of the Indian Penal Code or deal with the same in any other manner so as to plug the loopholes”.
A copy of the draft of comments prepared by the Law Commission was thereafter forwarded to Sakshi inviting their views thereon and for suggesting changes of a procedural nature, whether in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act. Later on, three other organisations, namely, Interventions for Support, Healing and Awareness – IFSHA, All India Democratic Women’s Association – AIDWA and the National Commission for Women – NCW also presented their views on the proposed suggestions.
After detailed discussions with these organisations, the Commission has recommended changes for widening the scope of the offence in section 375 and to make it gender neutral. Various other changes have been recommended in sections 376, 376A to 376D. The commission have also recommended insertion of a new section 376F dealing with unlawful sexual contact, deletion of section 377 of the IPC and enhancement of punishment in section 509 of the IPC. In order to plug the loopholes in procedural provisions, the commission have also recommended various changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the Evidence Act, 1872.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court forwarded vide its order dated 18.2.2000 the comments of the petitioner on the Response and Recommendations of the Law Commission of India for consideration. The Commission accordingly considered those comments and submitted its further resposne and recommendations dated 14.3.2000.
The Report focuses on the need to review the rape laws in the light of increased incidents of custodial rape and crime of sexual abuse against youngsters. The crime of sexual assault on a child causes lasting psychic damage to the child and as such, it is essential to prevent sexual abuse of children through stringent provisions. The UN Conventions and various constitutional provisions also underline the need for protecting the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This above Report aims at the attainment of these objectives.
Extract of Operative portion of the
judgement of THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA dated December 11, 2013, in CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972-86 OF 2013 in
the case of - 'Suresh Kumar Koushal and another ... Appellants versus NAZ
Foundation and others ... Respondents' is as under-
“54. In view of the above discussion, we
hold that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality
and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally
unsustainable.
55. The appeals are accordingly allowed,
the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1
is dismissed.
56. While parting with the case, we would
like to make it clear that this Court has merely pronounced on the correctness
of the view taken by the Delhi High Court on the constitutionality of Section
377 IPC and found that the said section does not suffer from any constitutional
infirmity. Notwithstanding this verdict, the
competent legislature shall be free to
consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the
statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney
General.
Extract of Operative portion of the judgement of THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI in WP(C) No.7455/2001,
dated 2nd July, 2009 in the case of, Naz Foundation .... Petitioner versus Government
of NCT of Delhi and Others .... Respondents' is as under-
“CONCLUSION
129. The notion of equality in the Indian
Constitution flows from the ‘Objective Resolution’ moved by Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru on December 13, 1946. Nehru, in his speech, moving this Resolution wished
that the House should consider the Resolution not in a spirit of narrow legal
wording, but rather look at the spirit behind that Resolution. He said, ”Words
are magic things often enough, but even the magic of words sometimes cannot
convey the magic of the human spirit and of a Nation’s passion…….. (The
Resolution) seeks very feebly to tell the world of what we have thought or
dreamt of so long, and what we now hope to achieve in the near future.”
[Constituent Assembly Debates: Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi: 1999, Vol. I,
pages 57-65].
130. 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.
131. Where society can display
inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of
dignity and nondiscrimination. This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which
Nehru spoke so passionately. 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 antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will
foster the dignity of every individual.
132. We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar
it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles
21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will
continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal
sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and
above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a
sexual act. This clarification will hold till, of course, Parliament chooses to
amend the law to effectuate the recommendation of the Law Commission of India
in its 172nd Report which we believe removes a great
deal of confusion. Secondly, we clarify
that our judgment will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases involving
Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality. We allow the writ petition
in the above terms.”
No comments:
Post a Comment