The Supreme Court today asked the anti-gay rights groups, challenging legalisation of gay sex, to furnish information regarding legal provision prevailing in other nations on the issue and how many cases have been filed against gay people for indulging in such acts in the country. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked them to "broaden the canvas" while opposing the Delhi High Court's order of decriminalising gay sex and not limit their arguments to only carnal intercourse as the final verdict on the issue would have wider implications.
    
"How many countries are there where there is such provision (which makes gay sex criminal offence)?" the bench asked senior advocate Amrendra Sharan, who is opposing the high court's verdict on behalf of the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Right."Have you got the number of cases filed under Section 377 IPC in the country and how many cases lead to harassment of a particular class (gay community)?" the bench further asked.

Section 377 referred to gay sex as criminal offence punishable upto life imprisonment but such acts were decriminalised by the high court in landmark verdict  in 2009."The verdict, that would come, would have impact on other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and would also have impact on other laws. You have to  broaden the canvas," the bench told Sharan. Challenging the high court's verdict, Sharan submitted that the judgement, passed on basis of court decisions in foreign countries, was erroneous, as India's culture is different from their's. Sharan submitted that penal provision for gay sex is not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as Section 377 is only for a particular act and not against a class.
    
Earlier, the bench had said that homosexuality should be seen in the context of changing society as many things which were earlier unacceptable have become acceptable with passage of time. The bench had referred to the recent phenomena of live-in relationship, single parent and surrogacy and said, "There is a case where a man is unmarried but wants to be a father and engage a surrogate mother. Thirty-forty years ago it was against the order of nature but now artificial fertilisation is a thriving business."
    
The apex court was hearing petitions filed by anti-gay rights activists and also by political, social and religious organisations which have opposed the Delhi High Court verdict decriminalising homosexual behaviour. On February 7 last, the bench had refused to implead the armed forces in the case on the contentious issue. The high court judgement had sparked a controversy and several political, social and religious outfits have asked the apex court to give the final verdict on the issue.
    
Senior BJP leader B P Singhal, who had opposed in the high court legalisation of gay sex, has challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court, saying such acts are illegal, immoral and against ethos of Indian culture. Religious organisations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance have also challenged the high court's order. Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Right, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munn Kazhgam, astrologer Suresh Kumar Kaushal and yoga guru Ramdev have also opposed the verdict in the apex court.