In what has been hailed as a landmark event, for the world as well as the world's largest democracy, the Delhi High Court recently allowed the decriminalisation of homosexuality within its jurisdiction in India. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860 and its provisions criminalised certain "unnatural" sexual acts of adults in private. This included provisions against rape and paedophilia, but also included "sex other than heterosexual penile-vaginal".

  On the 2^nd of July 2009 the court repealed the provision against homosexuality, which had previously allowed it to be punishable with ten years' imprisonment, declaring that this violated fundamental rights to personal liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution) and equality (Article 14) and prohibition of discrimination (Article 15). The law, it seems, has truly taken that bold step which people anxiously wait for.

This could eventually lead to the decriminalization of homosexuality in the entire country. However, despite the celebration of the High Court's ruling, there is still a debate raging. Various communities have inevitably found a voice, blasting the High Court and claiming that this would open a ‘Pandora's box' and threaten the sanctity of marriage and the Catholic Church in India echoed Pope Bendict's view that anything besides heterosexual relations is a "destruction of god's work".  An Indian astrologer has filed a petition to the Supreme Court challenging the repeal by arguing that India's scriptures and values do not permit homosexuality and that allowing it would increase the risk of HIV and AIDS. Well, that sounds very familiar doesn't it?

Such biases are reflected throughout the globe, not just in India. The prejudices of the few become indoctrinated as the accepted view that all should follow. The Pope may change, yet the conservatism and intolerance of the Catholic Church does not and many Catholic homosexuals are made to feel outcast. Islam's extreme viewpoints on gays are well documented. In fact India's politicians are having a say as well, with former Rail Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav stating that decriminalising homosexuality would be the doom of Indian culture and civilisation. We consistently find that those people who call themselves religious leaders and the voice of society will continue to have a problem with the law's take on homosexuality. We continue to be amazed by how blatant discrimination is consistently expressed in grand public forums to a wide audience - the Pope being a most notable example. Nevertheless, we allow every society to have its own perspective and cultural evolution.

So what should we take from this?

Firstly, Decriminalisation does not equal advocating. The Court is not saying everyone should be gay, the court is saying that to be gay is not a crime. Whatever moral viewpoint you wish to brand, the court is merely removing a punishment that makes no sense in the world of today. Australia, the U.S, Britain, China and now India have done as much.

Secondly, the law is not religion. The law exists to serve a purpose, a function. It exists to serve society, not to dictate it - that is the key aspect of a properly functioning system and we often see that when the law becomes dictatorial it is widely reviled by the people. 

India has risen out of its colonial past and is starting to break down its social stigmas. Despite being the world's largest democracy the country often provides some stirring examples of prejudice and abuse. The Delhi High Court has said ‘no longer'. The repeal of the laws is just another step to developing the country as a whole and Indian laws are finally adapting to the society of its day.

We live in a multicultural world with a host of differing views and practices. The function of the law should be to preserve freedom, not to infringe upon them. The common perception on homosexuality used to be that it was harmful, yet the beauty of society is that it continues to develop and strike down small-minded and frivolous viewpoints. The law should be, first and foremost, what its people stand for. Its purpose is not to champion the views of either Hindus, Muslims or Christians - it should take society as a whole and see what needs to be done in order to let it function. Times change, people change and the repealing of the ban reflects that. The role of the law itself has changed and it is important to note that India's ban could only be repealed because the combined consciousness of its people allowed it to.

For the people want freedom and they want the law to give it to them. Today, the choice of sexual orientation is classified as a freedom and the law has acted accordingly. Religious societies may believe what they wish, that is their own choice. But the law is not God's word, it is not there (or should not be there) to tell us what to do - it is there to keep society functioning at its best; and it better do a good job of it.

 Let people fight about the morality of homosexuality on their own time. The law (as they say) is the law, being based on objectivity and the task at hand. It's not perfect, but this time it's right.

The law has done its job, so leave it alone.

Related Stories

Miss USA California Responds To Gay Marriage 22 apr  |  Miss USA California Responds To Gay Marriage . . read more

Equal Love Campaign 6 jul  |  Equal Love is a nationwide campaign for same-sex marriage in Australia. Through education and direct action, we aim to change public attitudes towards lesbian and gay relationships and put pressure on the government to legislate for equal marriage rights.  . . read more

Eyewitness Accounts of Violent Police Raid at the Rainbow Lounge in Fort Worth, Texas 2 jul  |  People who were at the Rainbow Lounge on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riot tell what they saw happen during the violent police raid of the two-week old nightclub.  . . read more

George Takei on Defending Gay Marriage 31 oct  |  Actor George Takei speaks on the history of interracial marriage, Japanese internment and why it is vital to vote No on proposition 8. . . read more

Bittersweet 7 nov  |  Bittersweet - by Digby . . read more

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... 9 feb  |  "Fidelity": Don't Divorce... . . read more

Prop 8 Goes To Court 10 mar  |  It's been four months since California voters approved the election's most contentious ballot initiative, the anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8. The state constitutional amendment-which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman-sparked national outrage from gay-rights supporters, as well as some legal experts, who argue the measure was an illegal constitutional revision. Could the initiative-which has drawn the wrath of everyone from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Melissa Ethridge to Sean Penn-go up in flames?  . . read more

Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce 7 dec  |  What does it sound like when anti-gay marriage talking points are repeated back but substitute in "divorce". Backwards? Restrictive? Outdated? Foolish? All of the above. . . read more

Victim of Violent Police Raid in Hospital With Brain Injury 3 jul  |  At the time of this report, Chad Gibson, victim of the violent Fort Worth, Texas, police raid of the Rainbow Lounge was still in intensive care with a brain injury. In this video, his mom and eye-witnesses speak out on the heartbreaking (and headcracking) raid that took place on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riot in Greenwich Village, NYC. . . read more

Obama White House Backstabs Entire Gay Community 17 jun  |  Obama administration backflips over the Defense of Marriage Act that stops legally married gay couples from claiming federal recognition or from being recognised outside the state their marriage is performed in. . . read more