Pass the buck, please!

The Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict on the validity of Sec.377 of the Indian Penal Code.

The verdict has left some people pleased, some others disappointed, some frustrated, some annoyed, …. as usual.

Lauding the Courts when their judgments match our opinions and interests, and going after them with our rich repertoire of choicest epithets when they do not is hardly the way to go about.

It is about time all of us realised that law-courts are there to make pronouncements in matters of law subject to certain well established criteria. Pleasing the masses affected by the pronouncements is not one of them. The antiquity of the laws in question too is not one of the criteria against which a law is judged.

It is also high time we realised that the primary responsibility for making laws and amending them from time to time rests on the shoulders of Legislature. Courts do not make laws – except, broadly speaking, by way of interpreting and clarifying existing statutes of law. Sometimes Courts strike down some provision or the other of the various laws passed by the Legislature as being unconstitutional etc.

The Hon.High Court of Delhi found Sec.377 of IPC unconstitutional. The Hon.Court must have had its own rationale to arrive at that conclusion. On appeal to it, the Supreme Court of India decided otherwise. The Hon.Supreme Court must have had its rationale too; we are sure to find it there in the pages of the judgement if only we care to read it. The High Court might have erred – or the Supreme Court might have; but we are under an obligation to accept the view of the Supreme Court.

Sonia Gandhi and P.C.Chidambaram are among the prominent politicians to have spoken out against the judgment of the Supreme Court. One is disappointed with the judgement; the other thinks Sec.377 of IPC is antediluvian since the statute came into existence in 1860.

I have nothing to say about the disappointment – other than noting that the disappointment about Sec.377 or about the IPC never seems to have surfaced before the Supreme Court’s judgement though IPC has been around all through these years. As regards the law dating back to 1860: well, so many of our laws are as old or comparably old. The notions of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience that Western juridical theory is built upon – and which we follow by and large – are older still. Don’t we still embrace the cardinal principles of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience? The mere fact that a law is antique doesn’t necessarily mean that it is antiquated, anachronistic, or that it suffers from some serious blemish. To be dismissive of an old law just because it is old is preposterous.

In any case, the law has been around for a long time now – and in the 66 long years of independent India, our modern-minded legislators have not found the time to repeal provisions of law which have, over time, become irrelevant or undesirable someway or the other. That is why Sec.377 continues to be on the statute book.

The Supreme Court’s duty, an appeal having been made to it by some aggrieved litigants, was to decide whether Sec.377 of IPC was valid and maintainable; that the court has done. The Supreme Court has also gone on record to say that it is open to the Legislature to delete Sec.377 from the Indian Penal Code.

Why are our people so quick to blame the Supreme Court instead of blaming the Legislature and/or Government for their inaction all these years? Why are our politicians so quick to fire their salvos at the Supreme Court instead of biting their tongues and getting down to the business of deleting the offending provisions of law? The sanctimonious voices of our politicians leave one terribly disgusted.

What is even more disgusting is the effort of political parties to derive political mileage out of it all. Why should the Congress bother about the stand of Narendra Modi in the matter of deleting/repealing Sec.377? Why doesn’t the Congress Party just go ahead and introduce a bill in the Parliament carrying out necessary changes in the Indian Penal Code irrespective of what Narendra Modi, BP, or anyone else in the political arena thinks about it? Perhaps our politician-lawmakers should spend less time politicking and concentrate on discharging their duties. 

The fact is simply that political parties are not interested in taking responsibility for their actions; they want to please the anti-377 segment by speaking against Sec.377; and they don’t want to displease the pro-377 segment by amending the IPC; what is at stake in both the cases is the same: votes. But the Supreme Court is under no obligation to do the dirty work for the politicians and political parties; it has rightly thrown the ball to where it belongs: the Legislature.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. Spectralhues is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. The information, facts or opinions expressed in the article do not reflect the views of Spectralhues and Spectralhues does not take any responsibility or liability for the same.

• About the Author

About Sprightly Spirit

“I dare do all that may become a man. Who dares more is none”. And all, may be. It may be the vigor. Or the spirit. Or the courage to avoid being “politically correct” or bent. And, ban all averse with immaculate overture of graciously fathomable words firm in views. Subtle. Justifying the undying conscience. Values. Knowledge. And, dares to stay true. True to own. True to the world. And, to the words. With a dream in eyes it exists. In you. In me. In all. The sprite that never shies away. The spirit that never dies!