Justice Singhvi’s comments that you should read the text of his “last” Judgment before foul mouthing him, and one subsequent article by the Irreverent Lawyer that I read online, have made me curious about a genuine possibility that the Judiciary could not trespass on the Legislature’s ground of lawmaking, and was therefore sending the responsibility back where it belonged – while agreeing that there was a need to alter the law.
Now Yes, Mr Singhvi, I have read your Judgment which, in the best of descriptions, may be called prejudiced, and reeks of a colonial fervour which the Brits themselves are now ashamed to admit they ever had.
Your statement that Section 377 of the IPC criminalises certain acts and not people of any community is perfect; a truer statement has never been uttered. But what people do with their genitals – consensually – is no concern of the State’s (which plainly makes it unconstitutional, or in your jargon, ultra vires), and that is just one place where you fail miserably.
Your judgment stands on one keystone which you have stated thus:
You agree that “[i]n fact a constitutional duty has been cast upon this Court to test the laws of the land on the touchstone of the Constitution and provide appropriate remedy if and when called upon to do so. Seen in this light the power of judicial review over legislations is plenary.” This makes it YOUR SWORN DUTY to declare Section 377 ultra vires. But then, out of the blue, you go on to say that “keeping in mind the importance of separation of powers and out of a sense of deference to the value of democracy that parliamentary acts embody, self restraint has been exercised by the judiciary when dealing with challenges to the constitutionality of laws.” Self-restraint in doing your duty? I do not understand this. Does not compute.
Your hiding behind the technicalities of the “visiting organism and the visited organism” and what constitutes an offence is not lost on us and conceals your shame oh-so inadequately. Your inability to see the “perpetrators” of the so-called unnatural acts as human beings with psychosexual needs as different from that of the majority only discounts your humanity. Your use of redundant terms like “male penis” betrays your lack of a basic understanding of how language works; no wonder your grasp of logic and language is so irreparably impaired that you do not understand the functions of the three branches of government. I am, indeed, glad for my country that you are no longer in business.
Enjoy your retirement on my money. And one more thing: it’s spelled minuscule, with two u’s, and not miniscule, with two i’s. Buy a dictionary; it would make good reading during your retirement.
kilroykishore 