The Delhi High Court’s historic decision to decriminalise gay sex equates “sexual orientation” with gender, caste, and religion as identities that enjoy Constitutional protection. But while the verdict itself is unprecedented, the two judges who ruled in the case have a distinguished record of expanding Constitutional rights to protect the marginalised. The 105-page judgment, that combines judicial innovation with an inclusive vision, written by Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar fits perfectly with their record.

Many of Justice Shah’s past decisions have been sensitive to the physically and mentally disabled. In 2005, he held that a staff nurse could not be fired by a state-run hospital after being diagnosed with schizophrenia. He also prevented the Railway police from evicting blind hawkers from a platform. In 2008, Chief Justice Shah along with Justice Muralidhar, slammed the Delhi government for not hiring special educators and physicians to cater to dyslexic students in schools run by the Municipal Council of Delhi.

Jitendra Nagpal, a psychiatrist, heads Expressions India — an organisation that trains physicians, teachers and educators to deal with mental heath problems of children. He has been following Justice Shah’s pronouncements over the years. “Justice Shah is sensitive to the fact that ours is an inclusive society, and that people who are different or disabled all have human rights, which must be protected,” Nagpal told The Indian Express.

Though he was lauding Justice Shah’s approach to mental health, Nagpal could well have been referring to the Section 377 verdict. In 1997, Justice Shah stood firmly to uphold freedom of expression. He held that state broadcaster Doordarshan’s decision to not telecast Anand Patwardhan’s award-winning films on violence in Punjab (In Memory of Friends) and on Babri Masjid (Ram ke Naam) violated the director’s Constitutional rights. Patwardhan remembers Justice Shah as a judge who came thoroughly prepared to court. “He had read every single document we submitted to him so we didn’t need to argue much,” Patwardhan told The Indian Express. “The judge knew the case inside out.”

... contd.