A ministerial panel set up to formulate government's response to the Delhi High Court ruling legalizing gay sex among consensual adults decided on Tuesday, to convey its view to the Union Cabinet which will take a final call on the matter.
The three-member panel of Law Minister M Veerappa Moily, Home Minister P Chidambaram and Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad met in New Delhi on Tuesday evening and "critically analysed" the pros and cons of the Delhi High Court judgement legalising gay sex. "We have analysed the judgement with full objectivity -- what the judgement had said and what it had not said. Section 377 was not sought to be abrogated. Section 377 remains. The only question is decriminalisation of private consensual sex between two adults," Moily told media-persons. He said the ministers were of the opinion that the matter would have to be presented before the Union Cabinet. The Supreme Court, while hearing a PIL on the matter, had asked the government to present its stand on the issue and posted the matter for September 14.
"So, having analysed the judgement, we are placing it before the Cabinet and will ask the Cabinet to take a decision," Chidambaram said later. He said the High Court judgement has laid down Section 377 in a manner that it is consistent with Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Chidambaram said there was a lot of misinformation about what the Delhi High Court judgement had held. "One example is that the judgement has struck down Section 377, that is not correct," he said.
This was the second meeting of the three ministers, Moily said adding "we have not given any value judgement on theHigh Court judgement." Law Secretary T K Vishwanath had prepared a note on the Delhi High Court judgement legalising gay sex. The Supreme Court had on July 20 declined to pass an interim order to stay the Delhi High Court verdict legalising gay sex among consenting adults. The apex Court had said it would wait for the government to come out with a definite stand on the issue. The apex Court had refused to make any observation relating to legitimacy of gay marriage when a submission was made about it. The counsel opposing the High Court verdict wanted the court to say such a marriage was not legitimate.
