Religious, social sentiments to be seen while considering gay righ

New Delhi, Oct 4 (UNI) While allowing impleadment of Rajya Sabha Member B P Singhal, the brother of VHP leader Ashok Singhal, ''The Delhi High Court today said the religious and social sentiments of the people would be considered while dealing with the petition seeking homosexual rights in the country.

A division bench of acting Chief Justice Vijender Jain and Justice Kailash Gambhir said the view of Mr Singhal would be of prime importance while deciding the petition filed by Naz Foundation seeking re-examination of the section 377 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) which penalises physical relationship among persons of same sex in India.

Counsel H P Sharma, appearing for Mr Singhal, submitted that Indian religion and society would not permit the unnatural relationship among the persons of same sex.

It would be of immense help if Mr Sharma extended help to the court on the matter, said the bench.

The Court directed the Joint Action Committee (JAC), an NGO, to substantiate its allegations that the Naz Foundation was receiving foreign funds to popularise gay rights in the country by filing an affidavit by November 22, the next date of hearing.

''An opportunity was given to the petitioner to justify the reckless allegations within four weeks,'' said the court.

When the respondents argued for dismissal of the petition, the court said the matter deserved to have a look in the present day contet.

The Counsel of the JAC submitted that Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, noted writer Vikram Seth and Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee had been pressurising the government for legalising gay rights in the country.

The Ministry of Home, Ministry of Health, Delhi Government, Commissioner of Delhi Police, Delhi Aids Control Society and National Aids Control Society are the respondents in the petition.

In the petition, the Foundation sought direction to the authorities for declaration of the section 377 of the IPC (null and void) to the extent it is applicable to and penalise sexual acts in private between consenting adults, as it is violative of the Articles 14, 15, 19 (1)(a-d), 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court had directed the High Court for the constitutional review of the law on homosexuality Rights.

UNI PAT VA MIR RN1821