Dear Mr. Nair,
Thanks for raising this important issue.
Its true that Delhi HC asked for a view that "What do you mean by intercourse against nature?"
Many people though straight may have engaged in willing intercourse, by natural organ or by sex toys, which is known as against nature.
Same gender or otherwise, porn sites are popularising oral & anal activities amongst its victim viewers in common people.
- When there is no coercion or grievance, IPC does not recognise any offence.
- FIR is lodged by police for cognizable offence reported to police, not otherwise.
voluntary pleasure seeking is normally not reported by willing participants but when caught in the act, it may be exploited by one of the participants or police. That's the risk of adventurism. Even in marriage, IPC 498A is very often exploited.
But, you can't expect legal licence for anal or oral sex just like in case of dry state, where liquor permit will be granted by designated authority under medical advice of civil surgeon. ;p. same sex marriage is one such licence!
In nutshell, don't get caught on your bad day. ;p
Best regards,
-Joshi NM
On 13 October 2014 20:23, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Joshi,Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act between humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards. Pavan NairPS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment