JOIN USAs the issue of decriminalisation of homosexuality once again hits the headlines, all eyes will be on the Centre on what stand it would take on the issue.
On Monday, the government had tried to get the hearing of the petition postponed but the Supreme Court did not heed to the plea and went ahead with the hearing on Tuesday.
Officials said the government will clear the stand in the Supreme Court as and when the occasion comes.
However, they refused to spell the specifics even as LGBT activists harboured an apprehension that the NDA regime may not support their cause.
Earlier during a private member's bill by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, the BJP MPs had opposed it tooth and nail.
During the UPA regime, different ministries had taken diametrically opposite stand and had earned the wrath from the higher judiciary for the contradictory stands.
Even two lawyers, who had appeared for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has taken divergent stands, adding to the confusion.
Soon after the historic 2009 judgement by Delhi High Court decriminalising Section 377, the MHA had issued a press release saying it has not taken any position on homosexuality.
It also said a Cabinet meeting had then decided that the Centre should not appeal against the high court judgement in the Supreme Court.
However, after the Supreme Court judgement came, the UPA government had in December 2013 filed a review petition in Supreme Court to "avoid grave miscarriage of justice" to thousands of LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders) persons who were affected by the verdict that re-criminalises homosexuals.
Later, several prominent personalities and gay activists also filed separate petitions against the Supreme Court order.
In March 2012, during the hearing on appeal against the high court verdict, the MHA had filed a formal affidavit in the Supreme Court, supporting decriminalisation of gay sex among consenting adults saying the decision was taken as early as July 2009 by a GoM comprising Union ministers of home, law and family welfare.
The affidavit came after two lawyers representing the MHA took contradictory stands and the apex court rebuked it for this fiasco.
The MHA affidavit had then said that there does not appear to be any legal error in the judgement and the Supreme Court may take a final view "whether the judgement of the high court is legally correct or not".