SC reserves verdict on arrest of 5 activists in Koregaon-Bhima case

The bench asked the Maharashtra police to file their case diary pertaining to the ongoing investigation in the case by September 24.

The Supreme Court Thursday reserved its verdict on a plea by historian Romila Thapar and others seeking the immediate release of five rights activists in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and an SIT probe into their arrest.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, reserved the judgment after counsel for both parties including senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Harish Salve and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concluded their submissions.

The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khaniwlkar and D Y Chandrachud, asked the Maharashtra police to file their case diary pertaining to the ongoing investigation in the case by September 24. It also asked the parties to file their written submissions by then.

The five activists --Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha-- are under arrest at their respective homes since August 29.

The plea by Thapar and economists Prabhat Patnaik and Devaki Jain, sociology professor Satish Deshpande and human rights lawyer Maja Daruwala has sought an independent probe into the arrests and the immediate release of the five activists.

The Maharashtra police had arrested the rights activists on August 28 in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave -- 'Elgaar Parishad' -- held on December 31 last year that had later triggered violence at Koregaon-Bhima village.

The apex court had said on September 19 that it would look into the case with a hawk's eye as liberty cannot be "sacrificed at the altar of conjectures".

It had told the Maharashtra government that there should be a clear-cut distinction between opposition and dissent on one hand and attempts to create disturbance, law and order problems or overthrow the government on the other.

ALSO READ: SC extends house arrest of activists in Bhima-Koregaon case till Sept 19

Senior advocate Anand Grover, Ashwini Kumar and advocate Prashant Bhushan also alleged that the entire case was cooked up and adequate safeguards should be provided to protect the liberty of five activists.

The apex court had earlier said that it may order an SIT probe if it found that the evidence has been "cooked up".

Article Source Business Standard

Bhima-Koregaon violence: SC extends house arrest of 5 activists till Sep 17

The court adjourned the hearing after it was submitted that senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing the petitioners, was busy in another court.

The Supreme Court Wednesday extended the house arrest of five rights activists who were arrested in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case till September 17.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud adjourned the hearing on the plea filed by historian Romila Thapar and four others to September 17 after it was submitted that senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing the petitioners, was busy in another court.

Earlier, Singhvi appeared before the bench and submitted that the hearing on Thapar's plea be conducted after 12 pm as he has to appear in another matter.

The court was hearing the plea filed against the arrest of the rights activists -- Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha -- in the case.

The Maharashtra police had arrested the five activists on August 28 in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave -- 'Elgaar Parishad' -- held on December 31 last year that had later triggered violence at Koregaon-Bhima village.

ALSO READ: Letter 'concocted' to criminalise me: Sudha Bharadwaj on Koregaon arrests

On August 29, the apex court ordered the house arrest of the activists, saying "dissent is the safety valve of democracy".

Article Source BS

How the SC judgement on Section 377 ties constitutional values with emotion

Supreme Court's decision to decriminalise homosexuality is incredibly heartfelt and vindicates the dignity of LGBT people.

What does it mean to love in law? On Thursday 6th September, my social media feeds lit up with heart emojis, #lovewins hashtags, and status updates expressing love in response to the Supreme Court of India’s unanimous decision to decriminalise gay sex. There was a collective sigh of relief as the court lifted the weight of criminality from those who lived in the shadow of India’s law criminalising homosexuality, specifically section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 – a vestige of British colonialism.

Section 377 criminalises “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. Broadly drafted, the law codifies Victorian morality to criminalise a range of consensual and non-consensual (“unnatural”) sexual behaviours, including homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia, and rape. While very few people were prosecuted for same-sex sexual activity under the criminal law, it left sexual minorities vulnerable to extortion, harassment, and abuse. Thursday’s decision means that gay sex is now excluded from its reach.

In 2001, the Naz Foundation, an organisation working to end HIV/AIDS, petitioned the courts to “read down” the law to exclude consensual sexual activity between adults. The Delhi High Court agreed and held that criminalising gay sex violated rights to equality (Article 14) and privacy/liberty (Article 21) guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court overruled this decision in 2013, holding that only parliament could change the law.

ALSO READ: Section 377 read down: When lovers of liberty rose to the occasion

This protracted litigation history culminated last Thursday when a newly constituted bench of the Indian Supreme Court repudiated their previous decision and decriminalised gay sex. And it did so with an endearing emotional depth.

Loving jurisprudence

Spanning almost 500 pages, the court’s jurisprudence is a valentine to India’s LGBT community. The court’s four judgments (from five justices) tie expansive constitutional values of inclusion, democracy, and dignity to emotional claims about compassion, respect, empathy, hope, and love.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra observed that punitive laws eroded the “right to choose without fear” a partner and realise “a basic right to companionship”. Citing one of the court’s prior decisions about privacy, he noted: …Read More

Article Source BS

History owes apology to LGBT persons for discrimination: Key points SC made

A five-judge constitution bench concurred on the matter and presented their opinion with various philosophical and constitutional rationale.

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Section 377 ofthe Indian Penal Code, decriminalising homosexual relationships between consenting adults. The judgement is being held as historic by the civil society as the apex court has for the first time ruled in favour of same-sex relationships.

A five-judge constitution bench concurred on the matter and presented their opinion with various philosophical and constitutional rationale.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court rules it's not a crime to be a homosexual in India anymore

Key takeaways of the historic verdict:

History owes an apology to LGBT persons for ostracisation, discrimination, the Supreme Court of India said

LGBT community possesses the same human and fundamental rights as other citizens

Sexual orientation a biological phenomenon, any discrimination on this grounds is violative of fundamental rights

So far as a consensual unnatural sexual act in private is concerned, it is neither harmful nor contagious to society

Courts must protect the dignity of an individual as the right to live with dignity is recognised as a fundamental right

CJI Dipak Misra, speaking for himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar, says denial of self-expression is akin to inviting death

Section 377 of IPC was a weapon to harass members of the LGBT community, resulting in discrimination

Any kind of sexual activity with animals shall remain penal offence under Section 377 of the IPC

SC partly strikes down Section 377 as violative of the right to equality

IPC's Section 377, which criminalises consensual unnatural sex, irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a completely natural condition

Society cannot dictate sexual relationship between consenting adults as it a private affair

Denial of right to sexual orientation is akin to denial of right to privacy

Section 377 of IPC is violative of Right to live with dignit

India is signatory of international treaties on rights of LGBT and it is obligatory to adhere to treaties.

Article Source BS

SC judgement on Section 377 today; A look at the history of the archaic law

Amish Tripathi, a noted Indian mythologist, argues Section 377 does not reflect the traditional Indian attitude towards sex.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is a relic of British India, having been introduced way back in 1861. It was modelled on a 16th-century British law called the Buggery Act, which was the first such civil law that criminalised certain kinds of sexual intercourse.

The Supreme Court is expected to pass its judgement on the legality of the section on Thursday. It has heard arguments representing all sides of the issue over the last few months.

Even though homosexuality was partially legalised in England more than fifty years ago, it stayed on as an illegal act in India. The Guardian reported last year that 72 countries and territories worldwide continue to criminalise same-sex relationships, including 45 in which sexual relationships between women are outlawed.

Amish Tripathi, a noted Indian mythologist, argues Section 377 does not reflect the traditional Indian attitude towards sex. It is, instead, he argues, a reflection of the British colonial mindset, influenced by medieval interpretations of Christianity.

He cites several examples and anecdotes from Hindu religious texts to make his point -- that LGBT rights were accepted in ancient India.

"Purush napunsaknarivajivcharachar koi / Sarv bhavbhajkapattajimohi param priy soi. (Any man, any transgender, any woman, any living being, as long as they give up deceit and come to me with love for all, they are dearest to me.)"

"These lines were said by Lord Ram in the Ramcharitmanas. He did not differentiate between man, woman or transgender. What does this mean? According to me, this shows our liberal ancient attitude towards LGBTs. And there are other examples in the Mahabharata too. Such stories were celebrated in ancient India and this, to my mind, reflects the liberal attitude we had towards LGBT communities," he elaborated.

Naz Foundation vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

A historic judgement delivered on 2 July 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150-year-old section, legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults. The court said that the section goes against the fundamental rights of citizens while striking it down...Read More

Article Source BS