Last month, Supreme court of India delivered three mile-stone judgments which were widely applauded and rejoiced. These three historic verdicts are :
- Decriminalization of same-sex intercourse;
- Scraping of section 497, otherwise known as Adultery Law;
- Allowing the entry for women of all ages in the Sabarimala Temple.
Across the country, people have rejoiced all these liberating and progressive decisions. What is more admirable here is the timing of these judgments, which happen to be exactly ahead of the upcoming general elections. This is not to kill the celebration or joy of these victories but to understand the deeper meaning of it.
In Indian society, discourses and perceptions around gender, sex and sexuality are very complex. They are often associated with taboos and orthodoxy.
The concern here is on the impact of these verdicts on the society in a longer run. The expectation, obviously, is to welcome them with open arms, if not immediately, then with an adequate course of time. But, is it possible to have this only with the Supreme Court delivering a verdict in a rhetoric language?
In a democracy like India, we have the power to choose our representatives, elect, and send them in the House to work for us. We choose leaders/politicians, not the judges. That also means the voices of the leaders are stronger than the words of judges when we are talking about transforming the social attitudes. Sadly, these voices are missing in these cases.
Let’s look at each of these cases individually:
Decriminalization Of Same-Sex
Firstly, we need to look at the difference between the term legalisation and decriminalisation. The prefix “de” of course makes it seem that an act is no longer illegal. However, in legal terminologies, “illegal” is different from “criminal”. That means you still need to hide while committing a decriminalised act because it doesn’t have a legal wall to support its back. Some might say that decriminalisation rejects the change in the social values of our society, and opens the possibilities of making it legalise after few years. The concern is, why not ask the lawmakers to initiate constituting the legal structure that can help the LGBTQ+ community enjoy the same liberty and security as the heterosexual couples.
If you are thinking why to be a killjoy by questing a good deed, then you need to look at the recent honour killing in Telangana. Occurrence of such cases have been on the rise reflecting on the tolerance level of our society towards change. That makes it even more necessary to have a foolproof law to protect the same-sex couples. It won’t be wrong to assume that the tolerance of the society towards change in social values has decreased lately.
Instead of merely promoting same-sex relationships, it is necessary to include lawmakers in this right away. Simply because people trust their leaders more. If they’ll stand-up and address the issue, then there are more chances of de-stigmatise the same-sex relationships in the society, and create a more livable habitat for all.
Scraping Of Section 497
Before talking about this, let’s detox us from everything that the media headlines had been feeding us and go back to the binaries. If the two (or maybe more) consenting adults consensually decide to have sex, then it can’t be treated as a crime, even if they are married to different partners. The extramarital relationship can be (or should be) a ground for divorce but not the jail term. Next, the Adultery Law or Section 497 demeans women by regarding them as mere property of their husbands. As per the Law, “A wife is the property of the husband and if any man took her without your consent, then as her master, i.e. husband can put the thief in jail for five years.” That, of course, means the similar privileges weren’t extended to the wife, in case the husband cheats on her.
This, clearly, means that the Supreme Court has not slashed the law to make adultery legal but to bring equal rights to both the partners in matrimony. Couples can still fight the adultery in civil courts and seek a divorce, and as long as we will consider marriage. As an institution with sanctity, the adultery will remain wrong for both the parties.
Allowing The Entry For Women Of all Ages In The Sabarimala Temple
Sabarimala, in Kerala, sees fervour pilgrimage, especially in the month of November-December. Before the Supreme Court’s verdict, women below ten years or above 50 years of age were only allowed to enter the temple.
The Apex Court scrapped these rules and allowed the entry of women of all ages. The Chief Justice of India said, “devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination, and patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion.” The lone dissenting and women Judge in the panel, Justice Indu Malhotra said, “issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be interfered by the Court. The court should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion. The notion of rationality should not be seen in matters of religion.” (Reported Indian Express)
What she said were the true feelings of the religious people across the country when the verdict came, even though the taboo around the menstruation is apparently coming down in the society (or at least we like to believe it). People like Rahul Easwar openly called the verdict “unbalanced”, and none of the prominent leaders came forward to support the verdict. Then how many women will risk going to Sabarimala, as the verdict can’t change the priests and also the men in the family. Aren’t these the same people who said that the Kerala floods are the wrath of the Lord Ayyappa because of the same demand? So, if they think that messing with the so-called traditions can cause a natural disaster then how this verdict is going help change it.
Are these verdicts mere legal announcements and there are good chances of them not bringing the desired change in the society? Don’t you think we need stronger legal structures and recourses more now than before, to eliminate the chances of collateral damage?