(.
With that the Q&A session had come to an end.
With that the Q&A session had come to an end.
Indeed we ourselves choose our leaders and in the end we ourselves complain about their actions. Instead of picking our law-makers more carefully, we approach the courts, and hence we have become overly dependent on the judiciary. We don't want to look for other solutions, but we only want the judges to wave their magic wand (or slam their gavel) and make everything right.
In India unlike in England, the Supreme Court holds an unmatched position. In India it is the Constitution which is supreme, not Parliament, while in England it is the parliament which is supreme. Once the Supreme Court passes a judgement, it cannot be repealed, not even if the Judges who passed it are removed by Parliament. It is only the President, who has the power to grant pardons or remit the sentence of a person convicted by the Courts, and even this power is scarcely used.
So if the Supreme Court is so all-powerful, what stops it from declaring homosexuality to be legal? Section 377 of the IPC (a code enacted over 150 years ago) prohibits unnatural sexual intercourse. The provision existed almost a century before the Constitution. Now, did the framers of the Constitution intend that homosexuality be legalized some day? There is no indication of a positive answer and a negative one is more likely. But even then, the Supreme Court could easily have gone beyond its power and declared homosexuality to be legal. But the Supreme Court must be nobler than that, and so it has been. How can we expect the Supreme Court to punish those who abuse their power, when the Supreme Court itself abuses its power? The Supreme Court has chosen a higher path and stayed within the limits of its power.
It is my humble request to the people, especially those criticizing the SC on social networking sites and the media, to stop appealing to the Courts for every problem and to start appealing to the law-makers you have chosen. After all it is they who serve you, and not vice versa.
I would like to end this article by drawing focus on the last paragraph of the Supreme Court's judgement :
..."
The author is a member of Indiblogger.in, the largest community of Indian bloggers.
.jpg)
-------------------
What this judgments did was classify homosexuals as a separate class devoid of equal rights. If you can somehow trudge though the judgment and point out which part makes an ounce of sense, I will concede. They talk about the law not being constitutionally invalid by overlooking a majority of the fundamental rights. If by pronouncing them as a minority and shooting them down while passing hundreds of judgments every year in favor of SC/ST and OBc's is not hypocrisy, I donot know what is.