The role of Parliament in framing laws related to personal liberty is crucial, especially in the context of judgments like the Supreme Court's verdict on Section 377. This section criminalized consensual homosexual activities, and its recent judgment has sparked significant debate.
Parliament holds the authority to frame, amend, and repeal laws. It is the primary legislative body responsible for creating laws that reflect the will and welfare of the people. In the case of Section 377, some argue that it is within Parliament's jurisdiction to decide on such matters, rather than the judiciary. This perspective is based on the belief that elected representatives are better suited to gauge societal norms and values.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold Section 377 and pass the responsibility to Parliament has been seen by some as a technically correct move. The court's stance is that it is not their place to legislate from the bench but to interpret the law as it stands. This decision, however, has been met with criticism, particularly from those who believe that the judiciary should play a more active role in protecting personal liberties.
Mr. Naraman, the lawyer for the parents of the LGBT community, expressed skepticism about Parliament's ability to address such issues effectively. He pointed out that Parliament, as currently composed, is unlikely to take proactive steps to frame laws that protect personal liberties, especially those of marginalized communities. He also highlighted that the Supreme Court has, in the past, not hesitated to encroach on Parliament's turf when necessary.
One of the primary criticisms of the Supreme Court's decision is that it potentially undermines the concept of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This article guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Critics argue that the judgment fails to protect the fundamental rights of individuals to engage in consensual activities in private.
The debate over the role of Parliament versus the judiciary in framing laws related to personal liberty is ongoing. While the Supreme Court's decision to defer the matter to Parliament may be seen as a way to uphold the separation of powers, it also places significant responsibility on Parliament to act in the best interest of all citizens. Mr. Naraman's views highlight the challenges and skepticism surrounding Parliament's ability to address such sensitive issues effectively.