Verdict recriminalizing gay sex unsustainable: SC

Describing its earlier verdict re-criminalising gay sex as "unsustainable" in its right to privacy judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave a big boost to the LGBT community in their fight for their rights.
 
The apex court endorsing privacy as a fundamental right would have a bearing on a number of petitions, including those challenging the law that criminalises gay sex, protecting privacy on social media as well as how one can restrict eating habits among others.
 
Lawyers and activists also feel that this judgement would have an effect on the outcome of petitions challenging the 'two-finger test' conducted on rape victims.
 
One of the big takeaways of the judgement is the unambiguous stand taken by the nine-member Constitution Bench on LGBT community that the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) population cannot be construed to be "so-called rights" and that the earlier Bench's coinage was "inappropriate".
 
Justice D Y Chandrachud wrote in his judgement, "sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual.”
 
Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform, he said adding the right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and
21 of the Constitution.
 
"One's sexual orientation is undoubtedly an attribute of privacy," Justice Sanjay Kaul wrote in a separate judgement.
 
However, the Constitution Bench refused to go further on the issue as the challenge to Section 377 of Indian Penal Code is pending before another Bench. Lawyers said the petitioners challenging the matter to have another weapon in their armoury to challenge the case.
 
The import of the judgement is felt in other aspects too. Amid a section accusing the government of imposing a particular way of life, Justice J Chalameshwar said he did not think that anybody would like to have the officers of the State intruding into their homes or private property at will or soldiers quartered in their houses without their consent.
 
“I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life,” he said.