377 arguments, 4 voices

The case itself is more straightforward. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, drafted in Victorian India, criminalises “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. This has been interpreted to include sodomy, effectively criminalising homosexuality. A century-and-a-half later, the law is being challenged in the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, Naz Foundation, has challenged it on medical grounds, arguing that it prevents India’s 23 lakh gays, many of whom are at high risk from AIDS, from receiving treatment. The other group challenging the law, ‘Voices against 377’, relies more on human rights, contending that Section 377 violates the constitutional rights guaranteed to homosexuals. The court’s judgement is expected anytime now.

This asymmetry in the legal arsenal is no coincidence. A team of highly educated young lawyers has committed its time to this case. These young lawyers, four of whom are profiled here, are only a small slice of India’s horde of activist lawyers, many of whom have fought for years against Section 377.

Even these four have disparate stories. One is a hard-nosed Supreme Court lawyer, driven to the case by the constitutional obviousness of the cause. The others are more activist: a gay lawyer who wants to help his community, a feminist driven by middle-class guilt and pleasure, and a small-town girl hoping to empower herself and the world around her. But what links these stories is that all four could be anywhere else, earning far more. The global options available only highlight the choice they have made. The socially conscious lawyers of the 1970s fought on passion and belief. Version 2.0’s passion is matched by rigorous legal skills. This is their story.

VASUMAN KHANDELWAL, 27

... contd.