The Continuing Debate

The meticulous crafting of Delhi HC's verdict on decriminalization of consensual gay sex makes this ruling one of the most beautiful and powerful reads in recent times. Despite the hypocritical backlash from an otherwise disjointed majority of whoever and whatever, the High Court's message is loud and clear: in a democracy, constitutional morality should never be confused with popular morality.

But again, democracy is seldom without drama. Now all eyes are set on July 20 when the Supreme Court will hear a fast-track petition against this ruling, thanks to an appeal by some astologer. Yes, I am gobsmacked! While the story unfolds, G. Mistry shares with us her observations on this debate in her post entitled, "Despatch from Bombay: Naz Foundation v. Union of India," Gender & Sexuality Law Blog, The Columbia Law School.

She writes, "... in a country that lives in different centuries all at once, the role of the courts is brought sharply into focus. What should the courts do when confronted with an intellectual and moral chasm that divides the public as it does in such a case? Is it a dilemma at all? For the Delhi High Court, it does not seem to be" (Emphasis added).

The italized comment clearly explains the ongoing hysteria over Delhi HC’s reading down of Section 377. In fact, it is times and discussions such as these that make me imagine India as a giant Collage Country, quite in the tradition of Rowe's Collage City. India has not just different histories coexisiting but also different perceptions of what is moral and hence, both legal and rightful. Now whether the difference in this case aligns itself more closely to the concept of différance (Derrida) or the notion of differential (HL), remains to be seen.

And so the debate continues.