Is supreme courts judgement on section 377 correct?

@sarathkumar-FEGRPw • Oct 26, 2024

Oct 26, 2024

2.4K

It is little controversial but our debate section lacks some raw topic. So here is a one to spark some discussions amidst CEans .
Here is a small brief on section 377.Section 377 is a section imposed initially by British government during 1861 but it was dismissed in 2009 legalizing homosexuality.But yesterday (11/12/13) Supreme court brought back section 377 and said that gay sex criminal offence .

What's your verdict on this issue?

Like 0 Replies 16

Replies

Welcome, guest

Join CrazyEngineers to reply, ask questions, and participate in conversations.

CrazyEngineers powered by Jatra Community Platform

KSS Manian

@kss-TLq9Kp • Dec 11, 2013

I wont like to comment more in this debate.
God has formed us with the limitations. Eat through mouth, Hear through Ear, Breath through Nose.etc. If anyone want to do anything different, then it may affect them only.
0
Sarathkumar Chandrasekaran

@sarathkumar-FEGRPw • Dec 11, 2013

Yes i am on your side but they protest with the slogan that it is a democratic country and its their right to do anything.
Don't ever try to change the nature----you would be the loser....
0
KSS Manian

@kss-TLq9Kp • Dec 11, 2013

SarathKumar Chandrasekaran
Yes i am on your side but they protest with the slogan that it is a democratic country and its their right to do anything.
Don't ever try to change the nature----you would be the loser....
Really, they don't know how to behave in the democratic country. That is the only reason for implemeting the section 377.
0
Sahithi Pallavi

@sahithi-oJZaYj • Dec 11, 2013

Expected Judgement from Supreme court reversing the Delhi High court judgement. We need Judicial activism today where the values, morals and ethics of the society are declining.
Don't want to comment more, but the judgement is welcomed. Definitely there are some people who do get affected by any decision. No decision can satisfy the entire society.
0
Sarathkumar Chandrasekaran

@sarathkumar-FEGRPw • Dec 11, 2013

All politicians are trying their best to use this section 377 to their advantage .Congress had asked modi's view on section 377 and asked about modi's silence.
0
Ramani Aswath

@ramani-VR4O43 • Dec 12, 2013

The courts have to uphold the law as written. That matters of physical intimacy between individuals is the individuals own concern cannot be gainsaid. Why is it against the law if I want to take my own life? Yet it is a crime.

Such laws must be neutralised by the law makers. I have not studied the act and cannot comment. However, if there is a law against LBGT on the books I do not hold it against SC for the judgement.

My own opinion how people act is their own business in personal intimacies.
0
Sahithi Pallavi

@sahithi-oJZaYj • Dec 12, 2013

A.V.Ramani
My own opinion how people act is their own business in personal intimacies.
It is even society's business. Even an individual's interest has to take care of. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals. Hence even individual interest do plays a role in safeguarding society's interest.
0
Saandeep Sreerambatla

@saandeep-sreerambatla-hWHU1M • Dec 12, 2013

How does that matter to the society? I guess thats the problem with the perspective of how you see things!

Personal intimacy or likingness will depend on how people think, and how people do is their own business. Seeing them as a threat to society is nothing but foolishness.

Drinking and smoking on the roads is a problem to the public, they are big nuisance to people but people still dont make big laws or follow it. All laws should be made for the benefit of individuals I mean every individual irrespective of caste, creed, sexual orientation etc.. then automatically society will be a better place.

We are said not to discriminate people who have AIDS, why do we have to discriminate or make a rule for people who are homo sexual , comeon its their orientation and their life. you cant put rules on how a individual should live his life.
0
KSS Manian

@kss-TLq9Kp • Dec 12, 2013

@#-Link-Snipped-# - In tamil we have a sayings "Nellukku matthi sila pulhalum irukum". It means there are some grasses are grown in between the Monocot plants, If we didnot remove the grasses, then the land will fully occupied by the grass only. We can't get the sufficient rice.
What you said is correct. Smoking and drinking are also affect the society. I welcome the law against that. But govt wont do that because there are huge revenue will affect.

0
Saandeep Sreerambatla

@saandeep-sreerambatla-hWHU1M • Dec 12, 2013

True, What your quote said is also true. Because plants dont have the component we humans have "Brain".

If your friend is a smoker, or you are a gang of 10 in which 6 people smoke it doesnt mean that you should also smoke. Your brain or mind will help you decide what to do and what is correct and what is not correct.

So similarly, when coming for this law its the individual people's decision to do what he wants to do.
0
KSS Manian

@kss-TLq9Kp • Dec 12, 2013

True. Implementing law is to protect an individual or society from an individual or society.
The thread you written is having the answer, We cant introduce law against the 6 smokers. It is for the whole 10 people. But the 6 will affect more.
0
Sarathkumar Chandrasekaran

@sarathkumar-FEGRPw • Dec 12, 2013

Saandeep Sreerambatla
True, What your quote said is also true. Because plants dont have the component we humans have "Brain".

If your friend is a smoker, or you are a gang of 10 in which 6 people smoke it doesnt mean that you should also smoke. Your brain or mind will help you decide what to do and what is correct and what is not correct.

So similarly, when coming for this law its the individual people's decision to do what he wants to do.
Yes sir.We understand but i take your example itself to explain this situation .If there are six among ten to drink/smoke there is a high probability that they try to induce their habit to other four.
We are not supporting any side.we are here to discuss so that there may be a possible better idea/solution may arise.
0
Saandeep Sreerambatla

@saandeep-sreerambatla-hWHU1M • Dec 13, 2013

SarathKumar Chandrasekaran
Yes sir.We understand but i take your example itself to explain this situation .If there are six among ten to drink/smoke there is a high probability that they try to induce their habit to other four.
We are not supporting any side.we are here to discuss so that there may be a possible better idea/solution may arise.

Let them impose, its you who has to take a decision for getting to that habit or not. Your actions should be controlled by your mind. Not by someone else.
0
Saandeep Sreerambatla

@saandeep-sreerambatla-hWHU1M • Dec 13, 2013

KSS manian
True. Implementing law is to protect an individual or society from an individual or society.
The thread you written is having the answer, We cant introduce law against the 6 smokers. It is for the whole 10 people. But the 6 will affect more.

Thats true, but why to make a law in case of smoking? In that case there are many other things which are physiological for which we have to make laws.

I appreciate government making a law for smoking or drinking since it effects the health and environment, but homo sexuality doesnt effect anyone.

What is someone's problem If a person is homo sexual ? what harm is he doing for anyone?
0
Ramani Aswath

@ramani-VR4O43 • Dec 13, 2013

Homosexuality is not unnatural. During my last trip to USA, I went to my son's lab. They all work with fruit flies. He showed me one bunch of these little fellows, who were gay. All the males had collected at the top of the bottle ignoring the girls milling around below them.

Apparently it is in their genes.
So why not humans?
0
Sarathkumar Chandrasekaran

@sarathkumar-FEGRPw • Dec 13, 2013

I am convinced that its their basic right as Ramani sir said.I want build this discussion to next level.So here is a question that scratched my mind.

What is the disadvantage of allowing a LBGT in India ?
0