Subscribe for perks & to support LI

Your Interests & Preferences: Personalise your reading

Which best describes your role and/or interests?

I work in a law firm
I work for a company / in-house
I'm a litigator at the bar
I'm a law student
Aspiring law student
Other
Save setting
Or click here to show more preferences...

I am interested in the following types of stories (uncheck to hide from frontpage)

Firms / In-House
Deals
Courts
Legal Education

Always show me: (overrides the above)

Exclusives & Editor's Picks

Website Look & Feel

Light Text on Dark Background

Save preferences


Note: Your preferences will be saved in your browser. You can always change your settings by clicking the Your Preferences button at the top of every page.

Reset preferences to defaults?

It's happening: SC refers Section 377 curative to a Constitution Bench [LIVE]

It's happening?It's happening?

The Supreme Court has referred the section 377 curative petition - challenging the Supreme Court’s upholding in 2013 of the colonial-era law that outlaws homosexual and other “unnatural” intercourse - to a five-judge Constitution Bench for further examination.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal argued for two minutes for the petitioner the Naz Foundation, saying that the issue involved dignity and the right to sexuality - both of which are Article 19(1)(a) rights.

Sibal said that the right to sexuality is the most precious right and curtailing that right to express sexuality in the private sphere was unconstitional. This judgment will bind the present and future generations, he said, it involves issues of dignity and stigma. 

He referred to the Nalsa judgment and its inconsistency.

The Lawyers Collective senior counsel Anand Grover was also in court for Naz.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur wondered whether there was any opposition to the curative petition.

Then the counsel for the All India Churches Association made a brief submission about why the Kaushal judgment should not be reconsidered.

A counsel representing the Muslim Personal Law Board also made brief submissions.

Another counsel claiming to represent Kaushal and others made  brief submissions.

The judges just listened; only Justice Thakur intervened.

The he began to dictate the order after a five-minute hearing.

The Hindu reported that:

Giving an indication that the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Section 377 with new eyes, Chief Justice Thakur told senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for petitioner Naz Foundation, that the new Bench would not limit itself to the narrow confines of the curative law and conduct a comprehensive hearing of the arguments placed for the protection of the dignity and rights of the LGBT community.

One of the LGBT activists present in court said it was a big relief to them. When someone else kept talking the activist requested silence because it was ‘their’ order and it was in their favour.

Also read: A run-through the 377 history, and Kian’s now vindicated (but then optimistic) expression of hope in Chief Thakur this morning.

True, much can still go wrong between re-striking it down and leaving it on the books.

Any one of the five judges who’ll be examining it may not have much love lost or understanding for the LGBT cause, but it is hard to imagine a section as archaic surviving a thorough roasting over numerous basic human rights.

Live: Being updated

Click to show 10 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 Amicus 02 Feb 16, 15:53
NALSAR judgement. Hahahahha.
Reply Report to LI
1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 02 Feb 16, 15:57
Hah- force of habit-typo :)
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Gaurav Mehta 02 Feb 16, 19:40
I guess in the second paragraph of the above write-up Article 19A has been (inadvertently) mentioned wrong. There is no such Article in the Constitution of India. Rather, the same should be Article 19(1)(a) (Right to freedom of speech and expression). Please take notice.
Reply Report to LI
2.1
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 kianganz 02 Feb 16, 19:47
Many thanks, you're right of course - corrected.
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -1 Typo King 03 Feb 16, 00:28
Seems like your legal training had some issues, typos keep happening ha?
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1.1
Like +12 Object -3 kianganz 03 Feb 16, 08:33  interesting
I'm making sure our readers stay sharp and actually read what we write, so I strategically insert typos into every story ;)
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Guest 02 Feb 16, 19:48
When was the constitution amended to include 19A?
Reply Report to LI
4
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Airlift 02 Feb 16, 21:12
Seems justice delayed but injustice denied.
Reply Report to LI
5
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 ??? 03 Feb 16, 15:01
Dear Kian,

I understand that notice has not been issued on the curative, and only the question of what can be considered in a curative and what reliefs can be offered in a curative has been put to the Constitution bench. Please could you clarify?
Reply Report to LI
5.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 03 Feb 16, 15:07
I was under the impression that it's a proper CB on the issues, rather than just on curative petitions in general. See this report also:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-refers-plea-against-section-377-to-5judge-bench/article8183860.ece

Where did you get the impression that it's only on the curative?
Reply Report to LI


Latest comments