Thursday, December 19, 2013

ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಮರೆತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ:


ಬ್ಯಾತ ಎನ್ ಜಗದೀಶ
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ , ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.07.2009 gÀAzÀÄ zɺÀ° GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄRå £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄÆwð J.¦.±Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄÆwð ಮುರಳಿ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 377 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝ ªÀĺÀvÀézÀ wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß §¢UÉÆwÛ, ¸ÀA«zsÁ£À ¨Á»gÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ »jAiÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄÆwð ¹AVé gÀªÀgÀ £ÉÃvÀÈvÀézÀ ¦ÃoÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrvÀÄ.
ಈ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ವಿರುದ್ದ ದೇಶ ವಿದೇಶಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಜನರು ತಮ್ಮದೇ ಆದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೇಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಅನೇಕರು ರಸ್ತೆಗಳಿಗಿಳಿದು ತಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆ ನಿರತ ಜನರನ್ನು ಅನೆಕರು ತುಚ್ಚವಾಗಿ ತೆಗಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಅವ್ಯಚ್ಚವಾಗಿ ಬೈದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇವರಾರು ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ತಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಅಂದತ್ವವನ್ನು ಕಳಚಿ ಈ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು ನೋಡಿದತ್ತೆ ಕಾಣುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಕಾಯಿದೆ ಕೆವಲ ಸಂಲಿಗ ಕಾಮಿಗಳನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಶಿಶ್ನ – ಯೋನಿ ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಸಂಬದ್ದವನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರಲ್ಲ ರೀತಿಯ ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಸಂಬದ್ದವನ್ನು ನಿಸರ್ಗ ನಿಯಮಕ್ಕೆ ವಿರುದ್ದವಾದುದ್ದು ಎನ್ನುವುದರಮೂಲಕ ಅವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹವನ್ನಾಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.
K¤zÀÄ PÀ®A 377.....?
ಕಲಂ 377 ದಂಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಒಂದು ಕಾಲಂ ಇದು ಅನೈಸರ್ಗಿಕ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳು ಹಾಗು ಅವುಗಳಿಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆಯಬಗೆಯನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.  PÀ®A 377:- C£ÉʸÀVðPÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼ÀÄ (Unnatural offences) ¤¸ÀUÀðzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ; ¹Ûçà CxÀªÀ ¥ÁætÂAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸Àé-EZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ, CfêÀ PÁgÁªÁ¸À¢AzÀ CxÀªÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀgÉV£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ JgÀqÀgÀ¯ÉÆèAzÀÄ §UÉAiÀÄ PÁgÁªÁ¸À¢AzÀ zÉÆÃr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dįÁä£ÉUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ UÀÄjAiÀiÁV¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
F PÀ®A C£ÀÄß £ÁgÀhiï ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ zɺÀ° £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ,
1.     F PÀ®A ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀªÁzÀ dÄrAiÉÆ-Qæ²ÑAiÀÄ£ï £À ªÀiË®åUÀ½UÉ vÀPÀÌAvÉ gÀavÀªÁzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ EzÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð PÁAiÀÄðUÀvÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÁV eÁjUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ ºÁUÁ
2.    F PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸Àé-EZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ E§âgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨Á¬ÄAiÀÄ(Oral) CxÀªÀ UÀÄzÀzÁégÀ(anal) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄUÉ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÀ£ÁßV¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ
3.    EzÀÄ E§âgÀÄ MAzÉà ¸ÉQì£À ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ಸ್ವಹಿಚ್ಚೆಯಿಂದ vÉÆqÀUÀĪÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ£ÀÄßvÀÛzÉ.
4.    F jÃwAiÀiÁV E§âgÀÄ MAzÉà ¸ÉQì£À ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä EZÉÑUÉ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV vÉÆqÀUÀĪÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄAiÀÄÄ, ¥ÉÆðøÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß »A¹¸À®Ä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ºÁUÀÄ EzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ EzÀÄ C£ÉÃPÀjUÉ ¸ÀgÀ¼ÀªÁV ¸ÀÄ°UÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀÄPÀÆ® ªÀiÁr PÉÆlÖAvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
5.    F jÃwAiÀÄ ªÀvÀð£É¬ÄAzÁV ಸಲಿಂಗ ಕಾಮಿಗಳು (same sex) ªÀiÁqÀĪÀªÀರನ್ನು ಕೀಳುಭಾವದಿಂದ, ಅಪರಾಧಿಸ್ತಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ನೊಡುವುದರಿಂದ, ಸಮಾಜದ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಹಿನಿಗೆ ಅವರನ್ನು ತರಲಾಗದೆ CªÀgÀ°è ºÀgÀqÀĪÀ UÀÄ¥ÀÛ gÉÆÃUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÉZï.L.«/Kqïì vÀqÉUÉ CªÀjUÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀzÉ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
6.    MAzÀÄ ªÀUÀðzÀ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ F PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ C¹ÜvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß £Á±À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
7.    £ÉʸÀUÀðEPÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀÞ JAzÀÄ ªÁåSÁ夸ÀĪÀ F PÁ®AUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DzsÁgÀ«®è.
8.    ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ C£ÀÄbÉÑÃzÀ 15gÀ°è G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÉPïì JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß PÉêÀ® dAqÀgï UÉ ¹Ã«ÄvÀUÉƽ¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ CzÀÄ ¸ÉPÀÄìöå¯ï NjAiÀÄAmÉñÀ£ï (sexual orientation) UÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀÄÝ, F ¤nÖ£À°è ¸ÉPÀÄìöå¯ï NjAiÀÄAmÉñÀ£ïಎಂಬುದು ಒಬ್ಬವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ.
ªÀÄwÛvÀgÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄRåªÁV ªÁzÀªÀÄAr¹zÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄ EvÀgÀgÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÁzÀªÀÄAr¹zÀÝgÀÄ.

1.     ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ ªÀÄƯ¨sÀÆvÀ ºÀPÀÌ®è.
2.    £ÀªÀÄä zÉñÀzÀ°è ¸À°AUÀ PÁªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß M¥ÀÄàªÀAw®è ºÁUÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è vÀgÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄAwæ¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
3.    SÁ¸ÀVvÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ J®èQÌAvÀ®Æ ªÀÄÄRåªÀ®è.
4.    ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ C£ÀÄbÉÑÃzÀ 19(2) gÀ°è £ÉÊwPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ªÀiË®åUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤§ðAzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃgÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«zÉ.
5.    ¨ÉÃgÉ zÉñÀUÀ¼À°è C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ºÁUÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä zÉñÀzÀ°è C£ÀĸÀj¸À®Ä PÁgÀtªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
6.    PÀ®A 377 eÉAqÀgï £ÀÆålæ¯ï; MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É CzÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁQzÀ°è M¦àUÉ E®èzÀ §®vÁÌgÀzÀ £ÉʸÀVðPÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²Që¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è.
7.    PÀ®A 377 ¸À°AUÀ PÁªÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛ®è.
8.    ºÉZï.L.«/Kqïì, PÀ®A 377 ¤AzÁV ¤AiÀÄAvÀætzÀ°èzÉ, MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É EzÀ£ÀÄß Qæ«Ä£À¯ï C¥ÀgÁzsÀ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¢zÀÝ°è, EzÀgÀ°è vÉÆqÀV F jÃwAiÀÄ PÁ¬Ä¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉZÁÑUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
9.    PÀ®A 377 C©üªÀåQÛ ¸ÁévÀAvÀæöåPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è zsÀPÉÌ vÀgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
10.  ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÀÌøw F jÃwAiÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¦àPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅ¢®è.
          F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÀ zɺÀ°  GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ 02.07.2009 gÀAzÀÄ    “We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving           minors.” wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrvÀÄ.
zɺÀ° £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ F CzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÄ ಕೆಲವರು ತಮ್ಮ ¸ÀAWÀl£ÉUÀಳ ಮುಕಾಂತರ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV 23 ವಿವಿದ ಸಂಘಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಹಾಗು ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ತಮ್ಮ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ ¥Àæ±Éß ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀgÀ°è §ºÀĪÀÄÄRåªÁzÀ CA±ÀªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10PÀÄÌ ºÉZÀÄÑ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ, ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿ »AzÀÆ¥ÀgÀ, ಇಸ್ಲಾಂ ºÁUÀÆ PÉæöʸÀÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ zɺÀ° GZÀÒ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀ F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ದ್ದು ಒಂದು ಮಹತ್ವದ ವಿಷಯ. ±ÁAwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉvÀÄ zsÀªÀiÁðAzsÀgÁV ©Ã¢AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ಕಚ್ಚಾಡುವವರೆಲ್ಲರೂ F wæð£À «gÀÄzÀÞ MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV vÀªÀÄäzÉà DzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃgÁlªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¹zÀÝgÀÄ. (¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ F wÃ¥ÀÄð ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀågÀ SÁ¸ÀVvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UËgÀ«¸À¯ÁgÀzÀ J®è zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ vÀPÀÌ dAiÀÄ JAzÀgÉ vÀ¥ÁàUÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄ).
F wÃ¥ÀÄð £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀtð¨sÉÃzÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀqÉzÀ ºÉÆÃgÁlUÀ¼À°èUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀÄ Mc Laurin vs Oklahama State Regects 339 US 637(1950) £É£À¦¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
…George Mc Laurin ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï rVæ ªÀÄÄV¹zÀÝ. NPÀèºÁªÀÄ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è  qÁPÀÖgï D¥sï JdÄPÉñÀ£ï ¥ÀzÀ«UÁV Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ. DvÀ£ÀÄ PÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀtðzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ¤UÉ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¤gÁPÀj¹zÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀÝ eÁeïð ªÉÄPÁèj£ï «dAiÀıÁ°AiÀiÁV «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæªÉñÀªÀ£ÉßãÉÆ ¥ÀqÉzÀ. DzÀgÉ E°è DvÀ¤UÉ PÀÆgÀ®Ä ¨ÉÃgÉ D¸À£ÀzÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ ºÁUÀÄ ©½§tÚzÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀ°®è.

F jÃwAiÀÄ ¨sÉÃzÀ¨sÁªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÛ ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀ eÁeïð ªÉÄPÁèj£ï UÉ F ¨sÁj U.S. f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ(¥À²ÑªÀÄ f¯Éè, NPÀèºÁªÀÄ) zÀ°è ¸ÉÆîÄAmÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÀgÀÄ ºÉzÉUÀÄAzÀzÉ DvÀ U.S. ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀ .

CªÀ£À ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß M¦àzÀ U.S. ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ CxÀªÀ ¸ÀPÁðj PÀbÉÃjUÀ¼À°è F gÉÃwAiÀÄ ¨sÉÃzÀ¨sÁªÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¥ÉàAzÀÄ wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrvÀÄ.

 U.S.£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ F wÃ¥ÀÄð D zÉñÀzÀ°è ªÀtð ¨ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀ°è MAzÀÄ ºÉƸÀ ºÉeÉÓAiÀÄ£Àß ಇಟ್ಟು vÁ£ÁVAiÉÄà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrvÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ D zÉñÀzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀÄtÄaPÉƼÀî°®è.
ಭಾರತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಪ್ರಸಂಗಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದೇನಿಲ್ಲ ಅನೇಕ ಭಾರಿ SC ಶಾಸಕರ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗಳಿವೆ. ಇದೇ ನ್ಯಾಯಮುರ್ತಿಯವರು ಸಹ ಈ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದರೆ ಈ ಭಾರಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಇವರು ಈ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಲು ಹಿಂದೇಟು ಆಕಿದ್ದೇಕೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಬಹುದೊಡ್ಡ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ.

DzÀgÉ 11.12.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀ, CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zËdð£Àå £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÁUÀ° CxÀªÀ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©ü£ÀߪÁV £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀÄgÁªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀªÀıÀdzÀ°è ¤vÀå ¸ÀÄ°UÉ, ºÀ¯Éè ºÁUÀÄ QüÁV £ÉÆÃqÀ®àqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ d£À¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤®è¯Éà E®è.

eÁvÁåwÃvÀ, zsÀªÀÄðgÀ»vÀ, ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ ¥Á®PÀgÁzÀ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ಈ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ zsÀªÀÄðzÀ, ¸ÀA¸ÀÌçwAiÀÄ ನಡುವೆ ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲು ಹಿಂದೆಟು ಹಾಕಿದಂತಿದೆ.
5£Éà qɸÉA§gï 2013, ªÀtð¨sÉÃzÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉÆÃgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ, PÁgÁªÁ¸À C£ÀĨsÀ«¹zÀ C»A¸ÁªÁ¢ £É®ì£ï ªÀÄAqÉî £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß CUÀ°zÁÝgÉ.

11.12.2013 : ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è vÀĽvÀPÉÌ ±ÉÆõÀuÉUÉ zÀ¨Áâ½PÉUÉ M¼ÀUÁVzÀÝ d£ÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤AvÀÄ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÁvÀäPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀjUÉ zÉÆgÀQ¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ «¥sÀ®ªÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d£ÀgÀ C©üªÀåQÛ ¸ÁévÀAvÀæöåPÉÌ CUÁzsÀ zsÀPÉÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÉ.


CªÉÄÃjPÁ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ 1950 gÀ°è ¸ÀȶֹzÀ EwºÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ 2013 gÀ°è ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä »AzÉÃlĺÁQzÉ, ಆಮೂಲಕ ಶೋಶಿತ ವರ್ಗದ ಪರ ನಿಲ್ಲಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದೆ.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Our Supreme Court Failed to do, what US Supreme Court did in the year 1950!

Yesterday’s verdict by our Apex Court on Section 377 IPC, took me back to Black’s Fight against racial discrimination in US and their legal fight in US Supreme Court, the case was, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case that reversed a lower court decision upholding the efforts of the state-supported University of Oklahoma to adhere to the state law requiring African-Americans to be provided graduate or professional education on a segregated basis. The court found that the university's inaction in providing separate facilities, in order to meet Oklahoma state law, allowing McLaurin to attend the institution was a violation of his Constitutional rights.
George McLaurin, who already had a Masters Degree in Education, was first denied admission to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctor of Education degree. McLaurin successfully sued in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to gain admission to the institution (87 F. Supp. 526; 1948 U.S. Dist.) basing his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time, Oklahoma law prohibited schools from instructing blacks and whites together. The court found that the university's inaction in providing separate facilities, in order to meet Oklahoma state law, allowing McLaurin to attend the institution was a violation of his Constitutional rights.
The University admitted McLaurin but provided him separate facilities, including a special table in the cafeteria, a designated desk in the library, and a desk just outside the classroom doorway.
McLaurin returned to the US District court and petitioned to require the University of Oklahoma to remove the separate facilities allowing him to interact with the other students fully (87 F. Supp. 528; 1949 U.S. Dist.) The court denied McLaurin's petition.
McLaurin then appealed to the US Supreme Court. On June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public institution of higher learning could not provide different treatment to a student solely because of his/her race as doing so deprived the student of his/her Fourteenth Amendment rights of Equal Protection.
Accordingly, the high court reversed the decision of the US District Court, requiring the University of Oklahoma to remove the restrictions under which McLaurin was attending the institution. This case together with Sweatt v. Painter, which was decided the same day, marked the end of the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in graduate and professional education.

On 02.07.2009 Delhi High Court put an end from his side to the law which was there on the book even after the 59 years of Constitution by saying, “We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.  The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till, of course, Parliament chooses to  amend  the  law  to  effectuate  the recommendation of the Law Commission of  India  in  its  172nd  Report which we believe removes a  great  deal  of  confusion.  Secondly,  we clarify that our  judgment  will  not  result  in  the  re-opening  of criminal cases involving Section 377 IPC that  have  already  attained finality.” This was a relief to large number of people who are identified themselves either as Gay, lesbian Bisexual Transgenders,  Hijara and Kothis (L.G.B.T) persons. They are no more criminals; their consensual sexual act is no more criminal act, they are no more criminals in the eye of law enacted as early as in the year 1860.
The joy did not lost longer the magical number 11.12.13 was turned disaster to number of those people and not only those people but the people who believe in a freedom of choice. The Apex Court said
54.   In view of the above discussion, we hold that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally unsustainable.
55.   The appeals are accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.
56.   While parting with the case, we would like to make it clear that  this Court has merely pronounced on the correctness of  the  view  taken  by  the Delhi High Court on the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC and found  that the  said  section  does  not  suffer  from  any  constitutional  infirmity. Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General.
Up course Supreme Court has its reasoning and logic in coming to this conclusion but the judicial system is so blind? Judiciary does not see what is happening in and around?, don’t they get the logic?
But the question remain what US Supreme Court did in the year 1950 Indian Supreme Court fail to do in the year 2013.
It’s completely justifiable to the fact that the Legislator should legislate the law, the fact that they have not done for 63 would have been good reason for Supreme Court to substantiate the order of the Delhi High Court, then setting aside and saying that it’s a job of the legislature not the judiciary.
The difference is that the US Supreme Court could have said the same thing in the year 1950 but they could able to see the problem; they could able to see that the state has failed to do so. What prevented our Supreme Court to make a history? Its not that this is the Supreme Court has not struck down the law before. It’s not that the Supreme Court made the law before. But this time they have really failed. They have failed to understand the feelings of the people who are oppressed, who are discriminated, differenced. 

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

377 IPC

Supreme Court says ‘adult consensual same sex is crime in India’ this is what SC said after 63 years of Constitution and made large number of people who are identified themselves either as Gay, lesbian Bisexual Transgenders,  Hijara and Kothis (L.G.B.T) persons  are criminals in the eye of law enacted in the year 1860 by British Rulers against India.
02.07.2009 was the day of joy for many LGBT Community as the Delhi High Court has said in many words that,
We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till, of course, Parliament chooses to amend the law to effectuate the recommendation of the Law Commission of India in its 172nd Report which we believe removes a great deal of confusion. Secondly, we clarify that our judgment will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases involving Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality”.

 The challenge basically was,
1.     Section 377 IPC is based upon traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards, which conceive of sex in purely functional terms,
2.     The submission is that the legislation criminalising consensual oral and anal sex is outdated and has no place in modern society.
3.     By criminalising private, consensual same-sex conduct, Section 377 IPC serves as the weapon for police abuse; detaining and questioning, extortion, harassment, forced sex, payment of hush money; and perpetuates negative and discriminatory beliefs towards same-sex relations and sexuality minorities; which consequently drive the activities of gay men and MSM, as well as sexuality minorities underground thereby crippling HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.
4.     Section 377 IPC thus creates a class of vulnerable people that is continually victimised and directly affected by the provision.
5.     that Section 377 IPC's legislative objective of penalizing "unnatural sexual acts" has no rational nexus to the classification created between procreative and non- procreative sexual acts,
6.     That the expression "sex" as used in Article 15 cannot be read restrictive to "gender" but includes "sexual orientation" and, thus read, equality on the basis of sexual orientation is implied in the said fundamental right against discrimination.
State and the others at the High Court argued that:
1.     there is no fundamental right to engage in the same sex activities.
2.     In our country, homosexuality is abhorrent and can be criminalised by imposing proportional limits on the citizens' right to privacy and equality.
3.     that right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted for compelling state interest.
4.     Article 19(2) expressly permits imposition of restrictions in the interest of decency and morality.
5.     Social and sexual mores in foreign countries cannot justify de-criminalisation of homosexuality in India.
6.     that Section 377 IPC is not discriminatory as it is gender neutral. If Section 377 IPC is struck down there will be no way the State can prosecute any crime of non- consensual carnal intercourse against the order of nature or gross male indecency.
7.     that Section 377 IPC is not enforced against homosexuals and there is no need to "read down" the provisions of Section 377 IPC.
8.     that spread of AIDS is curtailed by Section 377 IPC and de-criminalisation of consensual - same - sex acts between adults would cause a decline in public health across society generally since it would foster the spread of AIDS.
9.     that Section 377 IPC does not impact upon the freedom under Article 19(1) as what is criminalised is only a sexual act.
10.                        Indian society considers homosexuality to be repugnant, immoral and contrary to the cultural norms of the country.
And this provision its violates,
1.     that while right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty and guaranteed to the citizens,

The Law: Until the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, a rather narrow and constricted meaning was given to the guarantee embodied in Article 21. Any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test:
(i)                            it must prescribe a procedure;
(ii)                         the procedure must withstand a test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and
(iii)                       it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14. As the test propounded by Article 14 pervades Article 21 as well, the law and procedure authorising interference with the personal liberty must also be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive
Supreme court in Menaka Gandi case said “If the procedure prescribed does not satisfy the requirement of Article 14, it would be no procedure at all within the meaning of Article 21.” And even in Khark Singh: “held that though our Constitution did not refer to the right to privacy expressly, still it can be traced from the right to "life" in Article 21. Justice Subba Rao, J. while concurring that the fundamental right to privacy was part of the right to liberty in Article 21, part of the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a), and also of the right of movement in Article 19(1)(d), held that the Regulations permitting surveillance violated the fundamental right to privacy. In effect, all the seven learned Judges held that the "right to privacy" was part of the right to "life" in Article 21.

And now we have the Court monitoring private life’s of People :-