10 years under Section 377 (unnatural offences) and seven years under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.

In a new twist to the sensational case of rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl at Jaihindpuram here in 2006, the death convict V. Selvam on Wednesday claimed that he was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence of the crime.

Disposing of a criminal appeal filed by him in the Madras High Court Bench here against the conviction and death sentence, Justices P. Murgesen and C.S. Karnan remitted the matter back to the trial court for considering it afresh.

According to the prosecution, Selvam, joined as a casual worker with a flower vendor who had his shop-cum-residence at Jaihindpuram. He was accommodated in the same house since he claimed to be hailing from Tiruchi.

On October 22, 2006, he raped his employer’s daughter, then studying in fourth standard. The girl sustained head injuries when she resisted. She was also strangulated. A few days later, her dead body was found in a carton in the second floor of the house.

The Mahila Court here on August 1, 2008 convicted Selvam under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed capital punishment. The court found it to be a rarest of rare case warranting death sentence.

He was also sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 (house trespass), life sentence under Section 376 (rape), another 10 years under Section 377 (unnatural offences) and seven years under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.

The trial court judgement was immediately referred to the High Court for confirmation in accordance with procedures prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure for dealing with cases relating to imposition of death sentence.

Simultaneously, the convict also filed an appeal assailing the trial court judgement as well as the prosecution case on various grounds. He had mentioned his age as 22 in an affidavit filed in support of his criminal appeal filed last year.

However, now the convict filed a fresh petition raising an additional ground that he was only 17 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence of crime. “Unfortunately I had not raised the above ground at the time of trial,” he said.

Claiming that he was born on June 1, 1989 as per a certificate issued by a Panchayat Union middle school at Tirupparankundram, he contended that he ought to have been tried by a Juvenile Justice Board and not the Mahila Court.

Keywords: rape, murder, Juvenile Justice Board, Indian Penal Code, Mahila Court

If you are a homosexual you may be in for a shock ????

Instead of directing homosexuals to seek help from gay support groups they prefer to pursue conversion therapy ??????? Each time a gay sees a picture of a naked man and is about to get an arousal, he is given an electric shock. Doctors from renowned institutions across the country are practising aversion therapy in the belief that homosexuality is a disease. Aman Khanna reports anand naorem Instead of directing homosexuals to seek help from gay support groups they prefer to pursue conversion therapy Eighteen is no age to be in the grip of neurosis. That’s not the time when you are drowned in the waves of depression. But when boys of his age were chasing girls with a spring in their walk, reading romantic poetry and sweating it out on cricket fields, Mahesh would sit in a dark corner at home and let an anxiety engulf him. He would think about the hostel mate he was deeply attracted to. Mahesh knew he was unlike the other boys. But he could not put his finger on the difference. When the depression became intense and Mahesh felt he was losing it, he decided to “address the issue”. He approached his family doctor. The physician said he didn’t know what was causing the depression and referred Mahesh to a sexologist. A famous practitioner in Mumbai, the sexologist told Mahesh he was suffering from a “disease” called homosexuality, but there was no cause to worry — the “disease” could be cured. He added he had cured many lesbians of the same disorder. The bottom line was clear: Mahesh was sick and he needed immediate treatment. The much-promised treatment began, with the sexologist asking Mahesh to come back to him with at least 10 nude pictures of men in different poses he found attractive. “He said he would flash those pictures and at the time of arousal, he would administer shocks or impulses on my body,” Mahesh recounts, “As that was happening, he would flash pictures of naked women. And then, no impulses.” Over a period of time, the doctor said, Mahesh’s mind would get averse to homosexual thoughts. The doctor said the treatment would take a long time. At the very least, four to five visits. The sexologist didn’t give a name to the treatment, but he promised complete cure. In clinical jargon it is called aversion therapy. Or as laymen refer to it — shock therapy. Mahesh came out of the clinic certain he did not want to take any treatment for his problem. He called up his family physician and said, “I think I will be able to handle it on my own.” He never went back to the sexologist. Mahesh managed to escape without any shock, but there are hundreds, maybe thousands, who do go ahead with the therapy prescribed to Mahesh. Till this day, a primitive and obsolete treatment like shock therapy is being used on homosexuals across the country “to turn them into normal heterosexuals”. Instead of directing homosexuals to seek help from gay support groups, sensitive to the feelings of homosexuals many doctors prefer to pursue a line of conversion therapy. That is, to convert them into heterosexuals. Most often, the doctors’ argument is — “What can I do if some people approach me for treatment? Do I turn them away?” But you scratch the surface a bit and the real reason for continuance of such therapy emerges — it is the bias, prejudice and ignorance that still grips the majority of the medical fraternity in this country. Many psychiatrists and psychologists approached by this reporter perceived homosexuality as a “deviation”, a “variation”, a “disorder”. They see it as a deep psychological problem that can be cured by some old-fashioned techniques and methods. And aversion therapy, or shock therapy, just happens to be one of the magus’ tricks. Damned Right: a recreated session of aversion therapy using models photo s. radhakrishna Electrodes looking like “a headphone” were put on his head, and then he was senseless. Almost paralysed by the 110 volts The electrical current passes through the bodies like hundreds of ants biting together, but it is the anxiety of anticipating a shock that is a thousand times more painful. They are made to feel guilty for the way they are Arvind Narrain and Vinay Chandran have been fighting for gay rights in Bangalore. Last year, they interviewed numerous counsellors, psychiatrists and psychologists in India’s Silicon Valley to find out why they are still using aversion therapy to change people’s sexuality. In one of the interviews, a behavioural therapist reasoned: “Shock therapy causes as much tissue damage as anal sex. So, why fuss?” Lata Hemchand, a clinical psychologist based in Bangalore, was practising aversion therapy till four years ago, but now advises homosexuals to approach support groups which can really help them in overcoming the problems. She admits most medical practitioners still see homosexuality as a deviation that “has to be set right”. Hemchand might have turned over a new leaf, but most doctors still see aversion therapy as a normal treatment — even in the best of neurological and psychological centres like National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (nimhans) in Bangalore. A clinical psychologist at nimhans confessed, on the condition of anonymity, that aversion therapy was used extensively in the hospital till four years ago. But, even today, it is administered sometimes as a part of the larger treatment of “orgasmic reconditioning” — a therapy which requires the homosexual to think of the opposite sex just at the time of ejaculation. There is more on offer at nimhans. MP Sharma, another clinical psychologist at the famous institute, told Narrain and Chandran that treatments include “psycho-education, cognitive restructuring, orgasmic reconditioning” and, of course, “aversion relief wherein we give them a mild electrical shock when they are watching homosexual imagery”. The line of treatment is based on Pavlov’s work on conditioning. Russian experimental psychologist Ivan Pavlov rang a bell every time to tell his dog its mealtime. After some time, the dog began salivating just at the sound of the bell. The theory concluded that certain associations produce positive or negative reactions in one’s body. The same theory was first used for alcoholics and then extended to homosexuals. The intention is to relate homosexuality with guilt and punishment. Two electrodes on Velcro patches are attached to the upper arm or the wrist of a homosexual. Sometimes it is attached on the thigh, too. On the other end is a small vanity box-sized transformer, which clearly spells out in large font size ‘Aversion Therapy Equipment’. RAKESH kumar, 27 Travel agent, Mumbai   I was in school then, probably in Class XII. I was confused about myself; I liked both men and women, but mainly men. And it used to haunt me. There were times I used to get terribly depressed. I had no option but to meet a psychiatrist. He is a famous practitioner in a reputed hospital in Navi Mumbai. He said, “You are going through a phase. It is an addiction, an abnormal behaviour.” The first day, he asked me to get a hiv test done. Then, he gave me injections. I don’t know what it was, but it would take care of my depression, it would cheer me for a while. Wherever he was, I would call and go over for an injection. He also put me on Prozac. Once, he called an older woman to his clinic in the night. She must have been 25 or 30, probably a sex-worker. The doctor asked me to caress her and imagine that I was attracted to her. He wanted to prove to me that I will get a hard on. After a while, I told him it’s just not possible. But I was naïve; I carried on the therapy. I was using my parents’ money to buy the medicines. Obviously, over time, they found the bills and approached the doctor. When he called me up, I told him not to disclose anything of my sexuality. He still did. I never went back to him after that. In the first session the doctor measures the homosexual’s threshold of pain. The clinical psychologist jacks up the voltage step by step to find out how the homosexual feels. Does it hurt at all, or is the pain “mildly unpleasant” or painful? Once the individual says it is painful, the voltage is lowered by a few degrees. The pain threshold has been calculated. All shocks would be of this voltage. Just before leaving the homosexual is asked to bring nude pictures of men he finds attractive. From the next session on, those nude photos are projected on a wall. Pictures of naked men interspersed with naked women. Every time a gay sees a picture of a naked man, and is just about to get an arousal, he is given a shock. And as pictures of naked women come on, the electrical wires are switched dead. The course is reversed for a lesbian. The treatment usually continues for two to three months. About 15 shocks of 30 volts a session, one hour a day, two sessions a week. The ‘patient’ needs at least 20 sessions, each costing between Rs 200 and 500. The electrical current passes through the bodies like hundreds of ants biting together, but it is the anxiety of anticipating a shock that is a thousand times more painful. “The harm is in the innocuousness of the whole thing,” says Narrain. Men and women are being made to feel guilty for the way they are. Till a few years ago, the archaic therapy was being tried on cross-dressers too. They were made to wear “their sex’s clothes” and then given a shock. It was given up when success was found scarce. Aversion therapy, though, is not the only trick up doctors’ sleeves; there are other therapies to do exactly the same. Male hormones are being injected into so-called effete men. In rural areas, health workers have come across quacks prescribing bizarre concoctions in green bottles and colourful pills to those not in touch with their masculine side. Talking to Narrain and Chandran for their study, a famous sexologist in Bangalore, Vinod Chebbi, criticised aversion therapy because “it took pleasure away” from sex. But, in the same breath, boasted of his cure to homosexuality — replacement therapy. “I show a series of pictures of heterosexual activity. I teach them how to enhance pleasure by the use of lubricant,” he explained, “I give him an idea of what is the vagina and how one can masturbate with lubricant so that the organ slides into the vagina.” Shockingly, at times, doctors even see electro-convulsive therapy (ect) — the shock therapy one usually sees in films — as an option. Aniruddha Bose was one of those who received ect. Twice. Back in 1995, Bose was pursuing chemical engineering from Jadavpur University in Kolkata. He had always been good at studies in school and college, scoring high marks. But even as a young man, he never understood all the jabber about girls. With time, he became aggressive, even violent. His parents consulted a doctor and he, in turn, sent Bose to a private nursing home. They told him “homosexuality was not a good thing”, that “it caused aids”. On one of the visits to the hospital, he was told he would be given shock treatment. Even then he didn’t resist, thinking the doctors were there to help him out. His parents were not present there. The male nurses held him down on a bed while the doctor placed a wooden block in his mouth. “I think it was to prevent me from biting my own tongue,” Bose says. Electrodes looking like “a headphone” were put on his head, and then he was senseless. Almost paralysed by the 110 volts. The shocks continued for three weeks. Twice a week. Every time, four or five people would come to his house and drag him away. He was put on a medication that still continues. Sanjay Kumar, 32 Tailor, New Delhi I was deeply troubled by my sexuality. I didn’t know what homosexuality meant. All I knew was that I was different. I had regular bouts of epression, but I couldn’t share it with my parents. Someone told me I could get treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. I went there with my friend. The psychiatrist told me, “It is unnatural. You aren’t supposed to be this way. Some day, you will have to get married. You can’t have children if you stay like this. You have to understand, the society doesn’t accept this.” He first recommended shock therapy to me. He said I would be fine after just five or six shocks. But I said ‘no’. I was scared; I had seen people given shocks in films. So he put me on non-prescription drugs. He would pull them out of his drawer. I was supposed to take three doses every day. Each dose had four tablets – two white, one yellow and one brown tablet. He said it would continue for six months. But, even after two months I didn’t feel any change. One day, travelling in a bus, I saw a sticker of the Naz Foundation India. I met a counsellor in their office, heard people discussing homosexuality. I owe a lot to them. I still feel angry at times. That doctor must have treated so many who were confused like me. There must have been so many who didn’t find any help. And then it happened again in 1997. The same shocks. The doctor told him the therapy was because of his “orientation”. He said, “If you don’t give it up, you will have to be admitted again.” His sister-in-law said the same. Bose was admitted again in the same clinic in 1999 and then in 2002, but he pleaded not to be given shock therapy. His parents are old now, and Bose says he has forgiven them. There appears no clear way to find the number of homosexuals undergoing aversion therapy each month, each year. Those who have experienced the trauma of receiving shocks are hesitant even to share it with gay and lesbian support groups. In any case, given the figures of gays and lesbians who approach mental health specialists for counselling, it must be large. All of it could stop only if doctors stop seeing homosexuality as a mental disorder. But doctors argue they cannot be singled out for their prejudices because it is the society that sees homosexuality as an aberration. In fact, it is usually the parents who push their children to get such ‘cure’ of homosexuality. “If only my parents had listened, I wouldn’t have gone through all of this,” says Kiran David in a mellow voice. David was 17 when he suffered a nervous breakdown on realising the man he loved was seeing someone else. His parents admitted him to St John’s Medical College & Hospital in Bangalore. By the age of 18, David became a schizophrenic. He felt people were following him; his phones were being tapped. Today, David is 21 and still has to take anti-depressants four times a day. He can still have an erection, but because of the medicines can never ejaculate. Till today, his parents have not mentioned the word ‘gay’ in front of him. Ironically, David’s father is a social activist who fights for labour and women’s rights, and his mother is a consultant in St John’s Hospital, the institute where he was admitted. There are many like David. But the legal system, too, finds itself tied up when faced with an issue of treatment of homosexuality. In 2003, the Naz Foundation, a Delhi-based group working to prevent the spread of hiv/aids, came across a case of a homosexual who was being given non-prescription drugs for months at no end by a psychiatrist in aiims. A petition with the National Human Rights Commission (nhrc) was rejected without delay. The unofficial reason given was — “Homosexuality is an offence under ipc. Do you want us to take cognisance of something that is an offence?” Most doctors generally hedge the question — why treat someone when they don’t have a ‘disease’. They quote clinical jargon to defend their actions. Homosexuality is generally broken into two conditions. If a person is comfortable with his or her sexuality, it is called ego-syntonic homosexuality. And if they are ill at ease, it is called ego-dystonic homosexuality. Doctors claim they have to treat those who are unhappy with their sexuality, even though the American Psychiatrists’ Association had declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as a disorder in 1988. None of the psychologists and psychiatrists approached by this reporter was even sure if aversion therapy works. There are no recent studies to support a change in sexuality by shock or any other kind of therapy. Even the anecdotal evidence given in the therapy’s defence is suspect. A few years ago, Hemchand, the Bangalore-based clinical psychologist, used aversion therapy on a middle-aged man who was under family pressure to tie the knot. He returned with his wife a few months later, claiming riddance of the disorder. “But I knew,” Hemchand says, “He was probably deceiving himself.” Everybody this reporter spoke to recollected their experiences not with sorrow. Everybody, instead, spoke of it questioningly, wondering what wrong did they do. As a counsellor who realises the futility of such treatment puts it, why should they be punished for living naturally?

April 09, 200 Moily defends move to let off Quattrocchi Favours opening up legal sector to foreign firms R Sedhuraman Legal Correspondent New Delhi, October 8 Exuding confidence that the proposal to open up the legal sector to foreign law firms will benefit young lawyers, Law Minister M Veerappa Moily today defended the CBI’s decision to withdraw the case against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi in the alleged Bofors payoff. Covering a wide-range of issues in an inter-action with the media, Moily refused to specify whether Karnataka High Court Chief Justice PD Dinakaran would be elevated to the Supreme Court despite allegations of amassing huge wealth. Constitutional authorities responsible for the appointment of judges would not go by “perceptions, impressions and controversies” but by “hard facts and evidences.” Queried further, he said none of the constitutional authorities was “bankrupt of ideas” on how to deal with such situations and that nobody could “hinder or obstruct” the process. Asked about throwing open the legal sector, he said he had discussed the issue with several delegations of young lawyers who were enthusiastic over the move as they felt that they stood to benefit the same way the country’s IT professionals did. Why anyone should doubt the competence of the country’s lawyers and deny them the opportunity to go global, he wondered. However, the final decision on the issue would be arrived at in consultation with the Bar Council of India and other stakeholders. There was a move to set up four law colleges of excellence, one each in every region, on the lines of National Law School, Bangalore, whose students were the most sought after by leading law firms, national and international. The government decided to withdraw the case against Quattrocchi in a Delhi trial court as it could not succeed in the courts of Malaysia and Argentina to get him extradited. Asked why the move had come 20 years after the registration of the case, the minister counter-questioned the reporter: “Do you want to have silver and golden jubilees” of the case? He refused to comment on the apex court’s appeal in the Delhi High Court on the issue whether the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) fell within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, stating that the matter was sub judice. On Section 377 relating to sex among consenting same-sex adults, he said the Cabinet had taken a decision to assist the apex court in deciding the case. Asked about UPA ministers travelling by business class on flights despite booking tickets in economy class, he said he travelled economy class and had not engaged CIDs to spy on his Cabinet colleagues. A new, comprehensive Judges’ Inquiry Bill was almost ready and would be put up for Cabinet approval shortly, Moily said. To a question on the absence of reservation in the higher judiciary, he said the SC collegium was making all efforts to provide for adequate representation to all sections of society and to all regions. Top UN AIDS official urges India not to waver in fight against epidemic UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibe with Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare Mr Dinesh Trivedi. 8 October 2009 – The role of India’s political leadership is vital to ensure that the country with the highest number of HIV-infected people in Asia achieves its goals of universal access to prevention, care and treatment by 2010, according to a top United Nations AIDS official. Making his first visit to the world’s second most populous country in his official capacity, Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Executive Director Michel Sidibé met with Indians ministers and other officials, congratulating the Government for the progress made in its response to HIV. He praised the results achieved by the Health and Family Welfare Ministry and National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) in expanding access to treatment beyond targets and implementing programmes which are having a positive impact on HIV transmission rates in the a country where an estimated 2.4 million people are living with HIV. Mr. Sidibé urged Dinesh Trivedi, India’s Minister of State for Health, to guard against complacency towards HIV in the face of other emerging challenges such as H1N1 flu and climate change-related health issues. He appealed for India to strengthen its role in the UNAIDS programmes and become a donor to UNAIDS in view of the country’s increased political and economic status in the world community. For every 100 people living with HIV in India, 61 are men and 39 women and prevalence is high in the 15-49 age group. As in most of Asia, the epidemic is concentrated among key populations at higher risk of HIV, such as sex workers, drug injectors and homosexuals. Mr. Sidibé expressed his support for the recent decision of a Delhi court to annul Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalized homosexuality, a breakthrough for rights groups that strengthens the NACO’s efforts to reach out to people at higher risk of HIV, such as men who have sex with men and trans-gendered people. The Commission on AIDS in Asia, an independent body, has noted that India has significantly increased domestic spending on HIV in recent years, accounting for nearly 50 per cent of the country’s total AIDS budget. News Tracker: past stories on this issue At least 4 million receiving AIDS drugs, but millions more lack access, UN reports

Legalising Gay Sex or 377 will destroy social fabric in INDIA

 

377 Ka Ganda me danda 

Download  Now &

Mobile ; 3gPP  ; Mp3 ; Dvd ; Vcd ; BlueRay Disc 

 

Legalising

  Gay Sex or 377  

will destroy 

social fabric in INDIA

Centre declines to take stand on gay sex

New Delhi, Sep 17, DH News Service:

Refraining from taking any stand on the politically sensitive issue of gay sex, the government on Thursday left it to the Supreme Court to decide on the correctness of the Delhi High Court’s verdict that legalised homosexuality.

The Union Cabinet decided to ask the Attorney General G E Vahanavati to assist the Supreme Court on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code relating to gay sex. The Government said that it was up to the apex court to decide on the law. “The Cabinet considered the report of the Group of Ministers and decided to ask the attorney general to assist the Supreme Court in every way desired in arriving at an opinion on the (Delhi) High Court judgment,” Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni said. She was addressing a news-conference after a meeting of the Union Cabinet, which was chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Supreme Court had sought the government’s opinion after a Christian organisation and a disciple of Yoga Guru Ramdev approached the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court’s July 2 order that legitimized homosexuality between consenting adults. The Government had constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) to shape its opinion on the sensitive issue. The GoM comprised Home Minister P Chidambaram, Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and Law Minister M Veerappa Moily. GoM suggestion The GoM is believed to have suggested that the Government should not oppose the Delhi High Court’s order, but should also refrain from taking a stand, but leave it to the Supreme Court itself to decide. Sources said that the Government had refrained from taking a stand on gay sex considering the political sensitivity of the issue. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) too has of late moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s order. The statutory body for protection of child rights has petitioned that the dilution of Section 377 of IPC has legalised one more way of sexual exploitation of children. The Section 377 of the IPC defines homosexuality as unnatural sex, which is punishable with imprisonment up to life. But the Delhi High Court on July 2 struck it down stating that it violates Article 21 (Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), 14 (Right to Equality before Law) and 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex or Place of Birth) of the Constitution.

Child rights panel moves SC against gay ruling

http://sideeffectsof377.blogspot.com/ 

http://sideeffectsof377.blogspot.com/

NEW DELHI: The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) has moved the Supreme Court challenging 

Delhi High Court order decriminalising gay sex among 

consenting adults.

The statutory commission for protection of child rights has petitioned that the dilution of section 377 of IPC has legalised one more way of large scale sexual exploitation of children.

A bench comprising Justice B N Agrawal, Justice G S Singhvi and Justice M K Sharma, after hearing the plea, issued notices to the Centre, NGO Naz Foundation and others on whose petition the high court had held that criminalisation of gay sex among the consenting adults was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The bench also tagged the petition of DCPCR with other similar appeals on which the notices have already been issued and posted the matter for hearing on October 1.

Senior advocate Amarender Sharan, appearing for DCPCR, said dilution of the penal provision will have pernicious effects on children.

The bench, however, wanted to know whether DCPCR had intervened in the matter before the high court. At this, Mr Sharan replied in negative and said it was doing so now as DCPCR, after going through the judgement, has filed the appeal as it is a statutory commission for the protection of children.

The petitioner commission submitted that plethora of scientific research highlighting the problems of homosexual behaviour and their serious impact on child welfare was not brought before the high court which held that the homosexual behaviour is normal.

“The high court did not have the benefit of scientific studies and on a very scanty, selective material has passed the judgement holding that the homosexual behaviour is a normal behaviour”, the petition said.

The commission contended that gay sex would adversely affect the physiological and mental development of a child and the high court has failed to take into account the problems encountered by homosexuals and their outcome on society at large including children.

The commission further said that the age of 18 years to define adulthood for consensual homosexual act in private is unreasonable as the age is characterised by changes and turmoil where the inquisitiveness and peer group pressure play a major role in the personality development of a child.

The apex court had earlier issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by a Christian body, a disciple of yoga guru Ramdev and astrologer Suresh Kumar Kaushal seeking a stay on the high court order legalising gay sex on the ground that it will have a catastrophic effect on the society’s moral fabric.

All the petitioners have sought setting aside of the high court verdict legalising gay sex between consenting adults in private, which was earlier a criminal offence punishable with upto life imprisonment.

Delhi child rights panel moves apex court on gay sex

Delhi's child-rights panel on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court opposing a high court ruling decriminalising homosexuality, saying it would permit sex between men as young as 18.
The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) in its lawsuit pointed out that the laws of the land prevent men below the age of 21 from marrying women and even countries like the United Kingdom permit homosexuality between adults above the age of 21.
Admitting the lawsuit, a bench of Justice BN Agrawal and Justice GS Singhvi issued notices to the union government and the civil society Naz Foundation, seeking their stand on the Delhi High Court verdict.
The high court had in early July decriminalised gay sex between two consenting adults, acting on a lawsuit by the NGO Naz Foundation. The union government has so far not challenged the verdict.
Appearing for DCPCR, former additional solicitor general Amrendra Saran sought immediate suspension of the high court ruling, but the court slated the matter for hearing on Oct 1.
In its lawsuit, the DCPCR said it was "constrained to move the apex court challenging the high court ruling as the high court has failed to take into account various aspects related to homosexuality, which actually adversely affect the physiological state of a child".
The DCPCR lawsuit pointed out that for the purpose of consensual gay sex, the Delhi High court ruling has considered a person of age 18 years or above as adult.
"But it is pertinent to point out at this stage that the Sexual Offence Act, 1967 of the United Kingdom partially decriminalizes homosexual acts in private between two males, both of whom must have attained the age 21 years," said the lawsuit.
"So even in the society like England, the minimum age for homosexuality in private is 21 years," said the lawsuit, adding the Delhi High Court's act of allowing homosexuality at the age of 18 years is "unjustified and without reason".
"In other words, the maturity and inability to comprehend the consequences of an act is not well developed in an individual of 18 years," said the lawsuit.
"Ironically, the high court ruling allows 18 year old men to indulge in homosexuality, while even the law of the land bars men's marriage below the age of 21 and girl's marriage below the age of 18.
"Even psychologically and physically, the age of 18 years is the age of changes and turmoil where the inquisitiveness and peer group pressure play a major role in the personality development of the child," said the DCPCR lawsuit.
The lawsuit said the high court appeared to be influenced by the fact that homosexuality has been legalized in some Western countries like the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, South Africa, Norway and South Africa, which, however, are culturally very different from India.
The lawsuit contended that India and China, which are home to over two-fifths of the world's population, have entirely different cultures.