Gaysi: The Gay Desi - Yes, we're legal!

The atmosphere in the march was electric, and resembled nothing short of a carnival. In the midst of startling colours, drummers drummed out the sort of rhythm that one couldn’t help but jerk one’s head to. Hijras danced bhangra and further, up ahead in the contingent, a student battalion from TISS belted out Bollywood numbers like Aaj kal tere mere pyaar ke charche har zubaan par and Tadap tadap ke iss dil, amidst much fanfare. Difference sparkled and shimmered like a defined entity, and in the space of the two-and-a-half hours that the march lasted, over SV Road down to Girgaum Chowpatty, contingents of the various groups representing Mumbai’s sexual minorities matching step and rhythm, celebrated it with zest. [.....]

Better than the real thing. So she makes it sound. A well written piece and therefore a must read for all.

Once upon a time, I use to admire this man. This man, Baba Ramdev. No no! Not because he wears the saffron dhoti. Or single handedly popularized Pantanjali’s yoga shaastra. Although I do give credit where it’s due – Baba Ramdev revived yoga (from its dormant form), commercialized it and turned it into ‘the-in-thing’. Screw Bollywood celebrities, this man is all international. Something even the likes of Aishwarya Rai took years and neednotmention loads of plastic to achieve. But this isn’t what caught my attention. Nor was I impressed by his claims of curing the curses of modern lifestyle; cancer, diabetes, AIDS and the likes.

I had a different reason.

You see, to me the man is the epitome of boldness. Courageous, to say the least. What? I hear you ask why?

Continue reading

Sumant Srivathsan talks about the good, the bad and the missing.

The HC ruling states that it will be used to govern laws pertaining to non-consensual unnatural sexual activity involving both adults and minors. This is the first major stumbling block on the road to a truly progressive assessment of gay rights. In order to achieve a truly level playing field, it is critical that sexual partnerships and behaviours involving same-sex couples be treated identically to those between heterosexual couples. In other words, if a man rapes another man, the law governing the act should be no different from the one that applies when a man rapes a woman. In the same token, there should be no difference in statutory rape law based on the victim’s gender. To use a different IPC section to address same-sex rape is to continue to condone the belief that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different in the eyes of the law.

[Link]

[Guest Author : Saakshi O. Juneja]

Okay, so the title may sound a little inappropriate to some considering it’s technically not a fight between two cats; more like between a cat (Celina Jaitly) and a bag of old bones (Shobha De). Oh come on be nice now, Saks! It’s not like Ms. Jaitly has been taught to respect our elders but then I also believe that every now and then it’s not a bad idea to give certain elders a taste of their own dirty medicine. So here we go…

Bag of Bones was quoted saying this in one of her usual crappy piece of journalism –

Celina Jaitly spoke sense (she was clearly being prompted via text messages during Arnab’s show, but what the hell she played the messenger convincingly), could she not have dropped the blue contact lenses, fake lashes, crazy wig and caked make up? She wasn’t shooting an item song. For someone pretty smart and articulate, Celina often gets it completely wrong when it comes to putting herself together for sober occasions. Nothing a clued-in stylist can’t fix… but fast, please!!

Ouuuchhhh! Now I don’t know about you but to me this sounds so very crude. Personal attack. But fret not; the self-appointed Queer Ambassador no way took these insults lying down. In fact she gave it back as hard…

Continue reading

Yes we all are (at least us, the Queer folks & supporters) bouncing with joy over the recent Delhi High court verdict – in a way – legalizing Homosexuality.

But honestly I am not too sure about this.

In perhaps the first gay marriage after the Delhi High Court in a landmark judgment read down Article 377, a law that made even consensual sex between adult homosexuals a punishable offence, two 18-year-old men, brushing aside protests from family and jeers from society, went to a temple near their house in Chandigarh and “got hitched for life”. [Link : TOI]

The freedom to choose one’s own partner is a deserving right for all. But tell me isn’t the above a misuse, considering they are ONLY 18 years of age?

[A special thanks to Guest Author, Jane Doe, for explaining the bottom line of what the recent High Court just decided.]

“From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness”.

- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3

I am over the moon about the judgement. This is brilliant not only because it gives gay people (men specifically), the right to love (& fuck) who they want. And takes it out of the purview of the state. But also, because I have faith in our constitution and the protection it extends to its citizens. This is now a victory for not only India’s LGBT community, but it also reiterates the supremacy of Articles 14, 15 and the favourite of many- Article 21. (19 we already had). 3 cheers to all those at Naz.

Broom asked me to do a post on the legal implications of Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (WP(C) No.7455/2001). I did read the entire judgement and will not launch into an elaborate discussion on the merits of the judgment. I’ll try to be as brief as possible (it’s a 105 page decision after all).

Now, I’ve been reading a lot of blogs and there’s been lots of discussion about the judgement and also for a long time now, Section 377. Being a member of the much hated legal brethren there are a few points/contentions/doubts/statements I’d like to clarify.

Issue #1: Applicability of the judgement/ Jurisdictional aspect (of the Delhi High Court): Per se, the judgement of a High Court (or any lower court for that matter), does not lay down the law in any other state not within the jurisdiction of that specific High Court. However, the situation at hand is unique and the substance of the case, unprecedented. In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the case of Kusum Ingots v. Union of India

An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether interim or final, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act. Thus in the present matter, the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The IPC also has nationwide applicability (except J&K) and therefore this judgement will apply all over.

Another side to this is the fact that this is an unprecedented issue. There have been cases in various courts all over the country wherein individuals have been prosecuted by the state. (That was one of the grounds on which the HC dismissed the petition the petition in the first place. The HC held that the petitioners in this matter were not interested parties (i.e. – had not been affected directly by the law) and the HC would not entertain petitions of such academic interest.) The petitioners (Naz Foundation) then took the matter to the Supreme Court which directed the HC to reconsider the matter. So there is no other judgement on the matter. Thus in the absence of any other conflicting judgement from any of the other High courts in the country this judgement stands and is valid until an amendment to the section is brought about. Note that a complete repeal of the section is not possible as the section was enacted to penalize sodomy. Thus while consensual sex between members of the same sex is permitted, sodomy is not. The situation is now analogous to the difference between heterosexual intercourse and rape. So yes, as of now, it applies pan India.

There is also the worry that the Supreme Court may reverse the judgement. Personally, I don’t think there’s much likelihood of that. While that the SC has a predilection for controversial and sometimes absolutely ridiculous judgements, bear in mind that it was the SC that directed the HC to review the petition in the first place. Also this is an issue of Part IV of the Constitution (fundamental rights) and who better than the apex court to uphold this? So unless these fundamentalist jackasses decide to go ahead and file a whole new petition, I wouldn’t be too worried. Also any such petition if filed would remain sub judice for a long time and till then Naz would still be the settled position of law.

I was only asked to write something on issue 1, but like I’ve been posting everywhere, I’d like to make a few clarifications on the impugned Section 377 and its applicability.

Continue reading