Question of Hmosexuality and LGBT Right in india

• Section 377 of Indian Penal Code is a colonial era provision which criminalizes consensual acts of Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Trnasgender adults (LGBT) in private. The Delhi High Court in a historic judgment in 2009 had decriminalized homosexuality. It had read down Section 377 to apply only to non-consensual, non-vaginal sex, and sexual acts by adults with minors. It had said that the section was the violation of articles 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution. However, the Supreme Court later struck down the Delhi High Court's order on the ground that the section of the IPC is constitutional and applies to sexual acts irrespective of age or consent of the parties. It even dismissed the review petitions filed against its order. However, the apex court has now referred the curative petitions against section 377 to a five judge constitution bench for in depth hearing. 
•                                  The gross exclusion of LGBT for long and the discrimination faced by them in the society have resulted into their social, political and economic exclusion. The argument in favour of scrapping the section is that any provision that penalizes an adult person's expression of consensual sexuality in private is significantly unconstitutional. They argue that prejudice of society against them and the pitilessness faced by them have forced them to lead a life of indignity and stigma. They claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but a normal variant of human sexuality. They quote International classification of diseases of the World Health Organisation (WHO) which they say, no longer considered non-peno-vaginal sex between consenting adults as mental disorders.
•                                     However, those who oppose homosexuality term it as a mental disorder and an unnatural act which results into diseases, especially sexually transmitted diseases. They quote religious texts which they claim, are gainst homosexuality. They further contend that revoking section 377 would make the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act redundant. 
•                                     The Supreme Court's decision to refer the matter to the constitution bench is a welcome step as it is a stepping stone to an open dialogue on an issue which has been taboo in our society.  It gives an opportunity to the apex court to bring the law in line with its own vision of fundamental rights, especially the idea that equality and dignity can not be denied to any section. It has paved a way for the omprehensive heaing on how to protect the dignity and rights of individuals with alternative sexual orientations. The case definitely involves questions with constitutional dimensions. 
•                                     It is worth mentioning here that the intervening years have seen considerable legal processes in jurisprudence of sexual orientations and gender identity. In 2014, the Supreme Court in its judgment recognized transgender community as a third gender entitled to same rights and constitutional protections as other citizens. The Bench while pronouncing the judgment said, even though insignificant in numbers, transgenders were entitled to human rights. 
•                                        On the global front, the United States Supreme Court last year held that gay community was entitled to due protection and equal protection in the matter of marriage, thus allowing same sex marriages. 
•                                         In view of these developments, time has come for an honest judicial evaluation that where India stands on the question of homosexuality. 
•