Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes "unnatural offenses" including homosexual acts. While some argue this section is ambiguous or unconstitutional, others label homosexuality as unnatural based on religious and cultural beliefs. However, major health organizations have removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses after empirical studies found it is a normal variation of human sexuality. Although Section 377 is an outdated colonial law from 1861, views in India remain closed to changing ideas around sexuality and gender. The Supreme Court has refused to repeal Section 377, claiming it is up to the legislature, but policies are often made in parliament for political gains rather than justice. For the author, interference in private consensual acts and restricting who one can love is unnatural,

1. Homosexuality in India: Naturally unnatural
The Section 377 of IPC has been the cause of many furors over
the years. It states the following:
Unnatural offences —Whoever voluntarily has carnal
intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman
or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
While some have claimed this section to be arbitrary and
ambiguous others have called it downright unconstitutional.
Much has been said and written about the violation of
Fundamental Rights in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution caused by this law. I would like to explore the issue
of labeling homosexuality as unnatural.
The fundamental question of this ongoing debate is what defines
and
what
defies “the order of
nature". The
religious pundits are
quick to label
homosexuality as
unnatural on
the
basis
of
religious and
cultural
beliefs.
These beliefs
are
accepted
by
majority of the
population
but
disagreements do exist. The differences are often ignored if not
oppressed.
Hence,
it
would
be
fallacio

2. us
to believe that such viewpoints would be correct on all issues
especially if the issue concerns a disagreeing minority
population. Therefore, to assay the veracity of this law, neutral
perspective provided by medical science becomes essential. In
1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed
homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders citing the reason that homosexual feelings and
behaviors are variations of human sexuality but a normal and
positive one. Since then, many health organizations have
followed suit. The Indian Psychiatric Society has also stated that
homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease. Furthermore, as
of 2012, about 3.8% of the American population identify
themselves with the LGBT community. Could it happen that such
a substantial segment of American population have developed
an anomaly, a mental illness? It is for us to decide which position
to take. The one based on subjective opinions of the masses or
which is backed by empirical science.
The cultural and temporal aspect of this law is equally important.
Formulated in 1861, this archaic law belongs to Victorian
England. It was an era when people were fighting against gender,
race, class and religion prejudices. Much has changed since then.

3. But, when it comes to homosexuality, we are still hung up in the
19th century. When the founders of Indian Democracy wrote the
Indian Constitution, they included the provision of amendments
because they believed that opinions change over time. Then,
why do we want to hold on to an old law so vehemently? Many
countries of the world including United Kingdom have abolished
laws criminalizing homosexuality. It is only natural that India
should break free from the curbs of old colonial laws and join the
ranks of progressive countries. But, by criminalizing
homosexuality India now stands together with most Muslimmajority and sub-Saharan African countries on this issue. It is not
a natural place for a country that has welcomed everyone with
open hands, is tolerant and inclusive of various cultures and is
celebrated worldwide for its "unity in diversity". Vikram Seth,
notable Indian novelist and poet aptly puts it when he says,
"What is un-Indian about this law is the intolerance shown in this
regard."
Why do I still consider homosexuality naturally unnatural in
Indian context? The answer lies within us. Though the Indian
Constitution in principle fosters inclusiveness and tolerance, as
individuals, we are still very far away from practising it. We are
not open to new ideas as readily as we would want to. The past
president of Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), Dr Indira Sharma, in
a remark which was refuted by IPS said, "The manner in which
homosexuals have brought the talk of sex to the roads makes
people uncomfortable. It's unnatural. Our society doesn't talk
about sex. Heterosexuals don't talk about sex. It is a private

4. matter." Her opinion resonates perfectly with the views
prevalent in today's society. Sex is a taboo in this society. It is a
word that provokes immature giggles from teenagers and frowns
from the elderly. If sex is considered a social stigma,
homosexuality takes this abhorrence to an entirely different
level. Such are the sentiments attached to homosexuality that
even the Supreme Court chokes up and refuses to even take
cognizance of the matter. Why? Because LGBT people challenge
the very notions of sexuality and gender that people had
considered established and undisputed for centuries. Even
though people may support the cause of homosexuality and
even sympathize with the discriminated people, they would not
like to have a LGBT person in their family. They are naturally
inclined against homosexuality. This homophobia often takes the
form of hypocrisy. A woman can be married against her wishes
and forcefully subjected to conjugal sex. The law will not
criminalize marital rape but criminalizes private consensual sex
among adults if they happen to be of the same gender.
Even though majority of this country is insensitive to this issue,
law can’t be made according to their whims and fancies. The SC
as a counter majoritarian institution must strive to deliver justice
to all segments of the society. The SC claimed that it's not in its
purview to repeal Article 377 of IPC and is a matter to be decided
by the Legislature. In this country, policies are tabulated in the
Parliament only for the appeasement of certain factions of the
society and for political gains. Hence, with no immediate
electoral advantage, the amendment of Article 377 seems very

5. unlikely in the nearby future. In the end it only leaves me wishing
that the SC would have delivered a
judicial judgment instead of a
moral one and upheld the High
Court’s verdict. For me, judiciary
interfering in private consensual
act behind closed doors is
unnatural. Law telling us whom to
love and spend our life with is unnatural. Homosexuality is not
unnatural.