In a departure from the stand it had taken earlier,the government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it does not want an interim stay on the July 2 Delhi High Court verdict which legalised gay sex among consenting adults. In the High Court,the government had cited morality and ethics while opposing legalising of gay sex. The government sought time to come out with its stand and the Supreme Court adjourned the matter until September 14. At the very start of the hearing today,Attorney General G E Vahanvati said we dont want a stay on the HC order. In his submission before the bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam,Vahanvati said the implication of the High Court decision was of limited nature,only concerning sex among consenting adults. We took a stand in the High Court which has given a judgment and we find that it is a limited order concerning consenting adults. Seeking time to spell out the government stand,Vahanvati told the bench: Three ministers of this government are in a huddle and are examining the verdict. We will come out with our view. Section 377 continues in the law book, he added in response to loud protests from counsels opposing the Delhi HC ruling. Endorsing the A-Gs submission,the bench too made it clear that the High Court verdict will not be stayed. There is no threat of penal consequences. We are not staying it, the bench said,adding We will hear the governments stand and then make up our mind. During the arguments that followed,advocate Pravin Agarwal,appearing for astrologer Suresh Kumar Kaushal who had challenged the HC verdict, contended that legalising sex between men would give rise to male prostitution. We will gave gay parlours all around, he said. But this view was not shared by either the government counsel or the court. The A-G submitted that male prostitution was covered under provisions of the Immoral Trafficking Act and the High Court verdict caused no prejudice to anyone. The court also made it clear that cases under Section 377 are registered only with regard to paedophiles. As far as it (Section 377) is concerned,there is no serious concern for the time being. On the demand for not recognising marriages between men after the July 2 verdict,the CJI observed: People are being convicted but it has nothing to do with gay marriages. We will not make any observation on gay marriages. The court also did not give much weight to the submission that striking down of Section 377 from the statute would have far reaching consequences. The bench was not inclined to accept the argument that the ruling would have a bearing on the law on adultery. Dont mix up things as adultery and incest have not been permitted by the judgment. It is only about consensual sex between male to male and female to female, the CJI said. On the argument over legitimacy of a gay marriage,even the A-G said the HC decision has not changed the definition of marriage. Marriage is not between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman, he said,adding,It is only between a man and a woman. Making it clear that the government stand will be perused before any decision is taken,the court adjourned the matter until September 14. Why not wait till the government takes a definite stand?
