The curative is a rare remedy afforded by the highest court to

correct, if any, errors apparent on the face of the record and grossly
violative of principles of natural justice.
In a few hours, the Supreme Court will take a final call on whether Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises consensual sexual acts of
Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) adults in private, amounts to
denial of their rights to privacy and dignity and results in gross miscarriage of
justice.
A Bench of the three senior-most judges Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur and
Justices Anil R. Dave and J.S. Khehar will on Tuesday hear a batch of eight
curative petitions filed by parents, civil society, scientific and LGBT rights
organisations against a January 28, 2014 judgment by the Supreme Court
dismissing their review petitions on the ground that Section 377 is constitutional
and applies to sexual acts irrespective of age or consent of the parties.
The curative is a rare remedy afforded by the highest court to correct, if any,
errors apparent on the face of the record and grossly violative of principles of
natural justice in the court's own earlier judgment.
Also read: LGBT rights: the journey till now
The three senior-most judges are an essential part of a curative Bench. In this
case, the judges Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhaya who earlier
heard and passed judgments in this litigation have since retired.
In January 2014, the apex court had dismissed a plea by the petitioners to review
its original appeal judgment on December 11, 2013 which set aside the historic
and globally accepted verdict of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had
declared Section 377 unconstitutional, and said it was in violation of the
fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court, led by its then Chief Justice A.P. Shah, had read down Section
377 to apply only to non-consensual, penile, non-vaginal sex, and sexual acts by
adults with minors.

The open-court hearing at 3 p.m. is a victory of sorts by itself for petitioners who
have waged an almost two-year since filed their curative petitions in March 2014.
They have contended that the review judgment, if not corrected, may result in
immense public injury.
Keywords: LGBT rights, Supreme Court, Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code, Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur

This new decision reverses that, while arguing that such matters are best left to Parliament to decide on.
This is curious coming from Justice Singhvi who has previously been happy to take on the government in
matters ranging from 2G licences to the red beacons on cars.
Why would a judge with no fear of red lights suddenly have reservations with rainbow flags, the symbol of
the LGBT rights movement? The pity is that this regressive decision, delivered on his last day, as now
seems to be the trend with judges, will forever mark the legacy of an otherwise progressive judge.
Because there were options short of this, which the judges didn't take. They could have referred the
matter to a larger bench. They could have modified the Delhi High Court's sweeping verdict, reducing its
scope.
But in setting aside the Delhi High Court's verdict, with a recommendation for Parliament to decide, they
reaffirmed a law alien to a modern democracy with respect for human rights, while adding the cynical twist
of passing the buck to an institution which, as the judges well know, shows little ability to pass any bill on
any issue, leave alone this.
LITTLE REASON FOR CONCERN ?
Some might argue there is little reason for concern. The BJP's spokeswoman Meenakshi Lekhi did when
she said that the litigation had been 'superfluous' since the law was not used in unfair ways, like punishing
those who had consensual same sex relations, but only those who did it coercively (i.e. same sex sually
dismiss the many cases submitted of harm caused by Section 377 by noting that only few cases have
been reported of people being prosecuted under it.
But this disregards that so many people are too scared of reporting problems simply from fear of the
stigma.

GIFT TO BULLIES
It also disregards the debilitating effects of such fear, which leads to young gays and lesbians being
bullied in schools, to adult gays and lesbians being forced into marriages which harm the
unknowing women and men they are married to, to gays and lesbians being blackmailed by those who
stumble on their secret, because over the years the courts have interpreted just being gay as a crime - by
their decisions criminalising the sexuality that this Supreme Court judgment cavalierly declares hardly
exists.
The judgment is a gift to these bullies and blackmailers. That verdict had not overnight changed the
conditions of LGBT people in India, yet in small ways it had resulted in profound change. More people
started coming out, not in particularly visible ways, but quietly and with confidence. LGBT characters
started cropping up in Bollywood films and TV shows.
And the number of cases reported of blackmail and bashings of LGBT people has definitely fallen. All this
has reversed India's image abroad. The world increasingly seems to be diverging between one part,

comprising of Western Europe, where LGBT people have broadly equal rights, and another part, made of
Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East, where they don't and can't dream of them.
People aspire to live, travel and work in the former, in the latter they only do because they must. MNCs
recognise this and send their best people to work in the former, and it is significant how most of these
companies readily offer LGBT-friendly policies where they can.
These companies had started seeing India as a country in the former bracket; now they will reassess this,
and India as a questionable place in which to work.

Jurisprudence is the study of law, or the philosophy of law. It helps us better

understand the creation, application, and enforcement of laws. This lesson
explains what jurisprudence is, and explores some specific schools of
jurisprudence.

Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence is the study of law. It is a type of science that explores the
creation, application, and enforcement of laws. Jurisprudence is the study of
theories and philosophies regarding law.
If we understand the theories and philosophies behind law, then we can better
understand our laws. The word 'jurisprudence' is derived from the Latin
phrase juris prudential. This means 'knowledge of the law.'
General jurisprudence can be broken down into several different categories. First,
there are categories that represent the types of questions scholars seek to
address. These questions mostly represent one of two sub-categories.
The first sub-category is analytic jurisprudence. This area addresses the
meanings and uses of legal concepts, such as, 'what is law?'
The second sub-category is normative jurisprudence. This area addresses the
moral basis of law, such as, 'what is the purpose of law?'
There are also categories that represent theories, or schools of jurisprudence,
regarding how those questions are best answered. Let's explore some of the
well-known schools of jurisprudence.

Natural Law
Natural law is a philosophy of law that focuses on the laws of nature. This school
of jurisprudence represents the belief that there are inherent laws that are

common to all societies, whether or not they are written down or officially
enacted.
This school of thought tells us that law is rational and reasonable. Natural law
proposes that laws are a logical progression from morals. Therefore, actions that
are considered to be morally wrong will be against the law. But also, actions that
are considered to be morally right can't truly and justly be against the law. Natural
law exists regardless of what laws are enacted.
Our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are both heavily based
on natural law. Thomas Jefferson even cited natural law in the Declaration of
Independence, calling it 'the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.'

Legal Positivism
A second school of jurisprudence is called legal positivism. Generally speaking,
this school of thought is the opposite of natural law.
Legal positivism proposes that there isn't necessarily a connection between law
and morality. Instead, it holds that law comes from various sources, usually the
government. If the government enacts a law, then it should be followed.
Under legal positivism, there is no valid argument for breaking a law, even if the
law isn't considered to be fair or just. For example, there would be no valid
justification for breaking a law by peacefully protesting an issue. This is true even
if the protestor has strong ethical and moral objections to the issue - though
under a natural law theory, the protest would be justified.

Legal Realism
Another school of jurisprudence is known as legal realism. This theory proposes
that law is a reflection of the personal views of those people in charge of
enacting, applying, and enforcing it. The actual practice of law determines what
law is.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has advocated this philosophy. In a

lecture at Suffolk University Law School, Justice Sotomayor explained that 'the
law that lawye