Thanks for allowing live-ins, but what about gay judgement?

Amidst the chaos all around us, on an otherwise regular day, there comes a whiff of fresh air that’s as invigorating as the first drops of rain on a blazing summer afternoon. Allow me to be slightly poetic here as I’m feeling a little giddy with excitement; not often do we get to hear some dose of maturity from people who’re in a position of power in this country. While the monsoon session of the Rajya Sabha may be the centre of all attention right now, there’s another body that’s managed to thankfully divert attention while our politicians continue getting down-and-dirty like only they can. Thank you Supreme Court, applause is in order.

While hearing an argument made by attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, who was advocating the retention of penal provisions for defamation with reference to a public figure’s reputation being tarnished if his/her live-in relationship is brought to light, the apex court’s bench comprising judges Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant remarked that such relationships are now an acceptable norm in society and it’s time that laws evolved with the changing times. Though this doesn’t have any bearing on actual laws whatsoever, it certainly is a welcome comment, considering how frequent and common it is for men (and women) in power to voice their mostly-ridiculous and largely-archaic opinions on sex.

The Supreme Court is perhaps more contemporary in thinking than it is often given credit for. Yes, it has made its share of follies, which I’m about to get to in a bit, but it has been far less morally judgemental than various governments in power and opposition parties. From recognising the transgender community as a third gender to initiating the right to a negative vote, issuing advisory notes to all states and union territories with regard to people being arrested for their opinions on social media and giving women who’ve lived with a man for some time the right of a wife, it’s been rather modern and fair. Quite fabulous, isn’t it? Now that we’re done giving credit where it’s due, let’s bring out an issue that’s been quietly brushed aside by the apex court. While you have been taking a much-appreciated modern view of our present day society, if I may ask, what exactly happened in the case of Section 377, your honour?

With the Delhi High Court decriminalising the age-old Section 377, the closeted lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community came out with rainbow colours and tears of joy. It was a moment of major celebration for a section of our society that’s still looked down upon and almost ignored to the point of non-existence in a country that’s supposedly the fastest developing economy in the world. Even though the actual impact of the landmark decision remains debatable - did your mother or grandmother actually accept you or someone you know as gay without a hint or more of a cringe? - there’s no denying that it allowed the repressed homosexuals in the country a chance to live freely without any fear, moral or legal. However, things took a shockingly devastating turn when the Supreme Court reversed that judgement and passed the bait to the Parliament to change or not change the law that should have been thrown out long ago. There were protests on the ground and comments galore on social media chiding the Supreme Court for not just undoing all the good done by the Delhi High Court, but also pushing back an entire community, metaphorically speaking, into the closets it came out of with great difficulty.

We all are well aware of the ruling party’s not-so-official yet rather obvious stance on all things gay. What are the odds then of the Parliament actually passing a law that’s in favour of the LGBT community? It anyway hasn’t been too comforting to women when it comes to violence, rape or domestic abuse. Isn’t it obvious then that there’s no sparing the homosexuals and bisexuals? Since there’s definitely been no entity more mature and liberal than the Supreme Court in each and every societal issue, it’s only right to expect it to intervene and deliver justice where it is due. We’re living in 2015 and everyone should be allowed to be themselves.

For a court that has rightfully embraced transgenders, what’s stopping the Supreme Court from recognising the rights and most importantly, the existence of the homosexuals? What have the gays done?