Let us be clear on this: as the court implied, in asking for empirical evidence, there is absolutely no data that can back up the government’s claims. Indeed, in Brazil, for example, increased public and administrative acceptance of homosexuality in an otherwise macho culture was one prong of a multi-pronged effort to contain the spread of AIDS. Some years later, the number of HIV/AIDS patients was barely half the figure that had been predicted by the World Bank. Compare that to famously homophobic Jamaica, where efforts to stem the HIV epidemic have stumbled on the fact that no homosexuals come forward to be treated, according to its own health ministry. India’s health minister, Anbumani Ramadoss, has repeatedly said that it is his ministry’s position that criminalisation of homosexuality impedes anti-HIV work. He is to be lauded for this. What is even more laudable, and impressive, is that he has chosen to publicly take on the home minister on the subject, not only as a doctor and health practitioner but as a liberal, demanding that Patil be “more progressive” and “a lot more sensitive”, while pointing out that acceptance of alternate sexualities has grown “the world over”.

Fortunately, this is a question of rights — fundamental rights in the Constitution clearly prohibit sex-based discrimination — and the domain of the courts. But whatever the decision, it is also a question of basic dignity, and the government has already failed miserably in ensuring that one of India’s minorities is provided the minimum respect that any liberal state should provide its citizens.