You are here: Home » National » Morality can't be a ground to deprive fundamental rights: HC
'Constitutional morality must dominate over public morality'
Morality can't be a ground to deprive fundamental rights: HC
New Delhi, PTI:
The Delhi High Court has ruled a person cannot be deprived of his fundamental rights because of public disapproval of his acts on moral grounds and constitutional morality must dominate over public morality.
"Moral indignation, howsoever, strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individual's fundamental rights and privacy. In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view," a two-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah said.
The court passed the order while decriminalising gay sex among consenting adults which was earlier a criminal offence punishable with even life imprisonment.
The Bench, also comprising Justice S Muralidhar, rejected government's stand which justified penal provision against homosexuality on the ground that it is against public morality and its legalisation would lead to moral degradation in society.
"We are unable to accept the stand of the Union of India that there is a need for retention of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to cover consensual sexual acts between adults in private on the ground of public morality," the court said in its 105-page judgement.
"Popular morality or public disapproval of certain acts is not a valid justification for restriction of the fundamental rights under Article 21," the court said, adding that "those perceived by the majority as deviants or different are not on that score excluded or ostracised."
The controversial law on homosexuality was codified 149 years ago when Lord Macaulay introduced the section in the IPC, making carnal intercourse punishable.
Interpreting Section 377 in light of basic tenets of "inclusiveness" of the Constitution, the court said, "A provision of law branding one section of people as criminal based wholly on states' moral disapproval of that class goes counter to equality guaranteed in the Constitution."
"The provision of section 377 runs counter to the Constitutional values and the notion of human dignity which is considered to be cornerstone of our Constitution.
"If there is any type of morality that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be constitutional morality and not public morality," the court said.
Its a pity. Which animal displays gay behaviour?
I agree its NOT a criminal offense. The whole argument about is decriminalising it.
Going further, these people are mentally disintegrated. They need psychiatric assistance rather than criminal justice.
In Canada there is a law for this kind of garbage. But then Canada and America are countries similar to Sodom and Gomorrah. Human being here literally live as animals. I live in the land of gays and bastards and Vandal Rodrigues will do well here. Indians should take a stand against these kind of animal lifesyle not embrace it.
The only reason this has come to pass is because it was a British Law and anything British stokes the sentments of the Indians. The gays use every trick in the book to explode their animalistic behavioural community into any given society. India is now employing the life style of the west which makes them still under colonial power
If an individual goes against the welfare of a society that is criminal. With degradation of moral values already the world is in a turmoil. The animal values are on the increase and the the four legged animal population is decreasing. However that is being made up by the human species turning in to animals balancing the total of human and other species in this world. May sanity prevail to offset the inhuman behavior of man. It is all HIS leelas that we see and HE will correct in due course in HIS own ways. Let us not hope and pray that physical relationships between humans with animals are also legalised in future quoting fundamental rights.
Kindly correct "Let us hope and pray that physical relationships between humans and animals are not legalised in future quoting fundamental rights " - sorry for the correction as the earlier statement may be misconstrued.
