The recent judgment of the two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India on what has come to be called the NAZ Foundation Case has come in for strong endorsement as well as criticism. From my perspective the reasons given, in both the tracks, are wrong. The crux of the matter stands obscured. It is my intention to bring it out into the open. And, in the process I will argue that Section 377 of the IPC is OK.
The honorable judges of the Supreme Court of India are strong votaries of the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection as propounded by Charles Darwin. One of the key insights is that the process, when driven by sexual reproduction vis-à-vis Parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction), is inherently wasteful.
The former carries a much lighter load of fidelity across generations. Never mind it gives rise to variety, it is still wasteful. Actually, the Bench said that variety, for all its supposed virtues, is a Trojan horse, carrying conflicts within it. This contest between the “normal” people who act as per the “order of nature” and those acting against its mandate is to be seen in this context. How nice it would be for the society as a whole if it were homogeneous, everyone acting the same, indeed looking identical. Homogeneity is the spice of life, this school holds and I agree. If it was within the powers of the Bench, it would have ordered that sexual reproduction should be banished.
If the process of sexual reproduction, which is natural, of course, is so wasteful, why will you add to the wastefulness? The other way of saying it is this: any sexual act that does not lead to, by itself or in modes of the act, reproduction is not natural. Isn’t this what the Bible says? It effectively says that any sexual act that does not advance the cause of the species (reproduction) is a sin, the reason behind the Roman Catholic Church’s position on masturbation, using contraception and abortion.
All the above weighed in on the universal outlook of the Bench and the result is Section 377 has the stamp of sanctity and also of the Indian Constitution. So, those who are braying for the blood of the Bench  are on the wrong side of the debate, I conclude. The editorial does not understand the deep-seated logic of the Bench’s verdict. It resorts to secondary, indeed tertiary issues such as individual freedom and human rights. Tut, tut …
1. A retrograde decision, The Hindu, December 12, 2013