SC ruling on Section 377: Angry petitioners call it a 'black day'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s unexpected judgment overturning the 2009 Delhi High court verdict that de-criminalised homosexuality has led to an outburst of deeply emotional reactions from members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender (LGBT) community. Despite the disappointment and shock that came over members of the community and their friends and family, who had gathered outside the Supreme Court in anticipation of the verdict on Wednesday morning, the overwhelming mood in the community was one of solidarity and resolve to strengthen their struggle for equality. Speaking to the media, a visibly sad and angry Shaleen Rakesh, who has been associated with the legal struggle since it began in 2001, said, “I am speaking today not just as an activist  but as a gay man. The journey of the last 12 years has been very hopeful and celebratory… As someone who stands strongly for fundamental rights, I am shocked to be living in a country which today wants me to go back into the closet. I am not going back into the closet.” [caption id=“attachment_1282329” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  A participant in the Delhi Gay Pride Walk. Reuters.[/caption] A powerful response to the Supreme Court judgment came from Arvind Narayan, a lawyer from the Alternative Law Forum, which represented  Voices Against 377, one of the petitioners. In a scathing criticism of the verdict, Narayan said, “It is a tragedy that this judgment forgets the vision of the founders of our Constitution. It forgets that the Constitution says that majorities shall not discriminate against minorities. To us today this judgement is a fundamental and deep betrayal of the Constitutional promise that the dignity of citizens will be recognised and that equal protection is a non-negotiable element of the world’s largest democracy.” The judgement, Narayan said “withdraws the protective arm of the Constitution from LGBT persons and makes them vulnerable to discrimination, violence and harassment”. Describing the judgment as one of “lowest ebbs in Supreme Court’s history,” Narayan said, “The first was when the Indian Supreme Court held that all persons don’t have the right to life and upheld the Emergency. The second was in the Mathura custodial rape case when the Supreme Court held that Indian women who complain of rape are liars and the third is today when the apex court has held that as far as it is concerned, LGBT persons are not full and equal citizens of this country.” Members of the LGBT community and activists are apprehensive that the judgement could lead to a backlash against the community and give the police an excuse to harass them. “There is going to be a horrendous backlash. The police will crack down with even more viciousness. It is frightening what is going to happen,” said Anjali Gopalan of Naz Foundation. Describing the verdict as “bizarre”, an emotional Gopalan added, “This is a black day for us. I just feel so exhausted thinking that we have been set back by a 100 years. What ages are we living in. What is this reflective of of us a culture, what does this say about us a people.” The Supreme Court’s observation that the petitioners should go to Parliament drew flak from the senior advocate Anand Grover, who  represented Naz Foundation. “Why has it taken 21 months for the Supreme Court to come up with the verdict that petitioners should go to the Parliament…Why did the same Supreme Court take up the 2g case when it was a case of policy decision. But when fundamental rights are involved, when dignity and privacy of citizens are involved, why has the Supreme Court washed its hands off. Why is it telling us to go to Parliament for that. I think it is shocking that Supreme Court should say that,” said Grover.