CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

The final draft for the fulfilment of project of Legal English

On

PROBLEMS OF LESBIAN IN FIRE

Submitted to:-Mr Pratyushkaushik

Faculty of Legal English

Submitted by:-Udit Kapoor

Roll no. 1660

1st year B.B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.)

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... 3
Declaration ................................................................................................................................. 4
Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5
Aims & Objectives ................................................................................................................. 5
Research Methodology........................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
synopsis .................................................................................................................................. 6
summary ............................................................................................................................... 10
controversy............................................................................................................................... 15
laws regarding lgbt rights......................................................................................................... 16
conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 18
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 18

2|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Writing a project is one of the most difficult academic challenges I

have ever faced. Though this project has been presented by me but
there are many people who remained in veil, who gave their support
and helped me to complete this project.

First of all I am very grateful to my subject teacher Mr Pratyush

kaushik without the kind support of whom and help the completion
of the project would have been a herculean task for me. He took out
time from his busy schedule to help me to complete this project and
suggested me from where and how to collect data.

3|Page
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in the BA LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
PROBLEMS OF LESBIAN IN FIRE submitted at Chanakya National Law
University, Patnais an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Mr
Pratyush Kaushik. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or
diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

4|Page
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AIMS & OBJECTIVES

The researcher will do this research to know about the PROBLEMS OF LESBIAN IN
FIRE. And to link it with the society.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher will emphasize and use the doctrinal method for this project topic.

INTRODUCTION

5|Page
SYNOPSIS

The film's prologue takes place in a field of flowers. Radha (Karishma Jhalani), a young girl,
relaxes with her mother (Ramanjeet Kaur) and her father (Dilip Mehta). Radha's mother tells
a story of a group of people living in mountains who'd never seen the sea. They were sad, and
then an old woman told them that they had to see without looking. Radha's mother asks her if
she understands. Radha says no.

In the present, Sita (Nandita Das) stands with a bunch of visitors in front of a tour guide,
looking at the Taj Mahal. The tour guide explains how Shah Jahan's wife made him promise
to build this monument as a symbol of their love. Sita's husband Jatin (Javed Jaffrey) joins
the group. He and Sita are in an arranged marriage and they don't get along. Sita asks Jatin,
"Don't you like me?" He responds that they've only been married for three days.

In her home, the now-adult Radha (Shabana Azmi) cares for her mother-in-law, Biji (Kushal
Rekhi), who's suffered a stroke, cannot talk and barely moves around. Radha powders her
back, clothes her, and gives her a bell, which she uses to communicate with. Radha lives here
with Biji and her husband Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), and the family operates a
restaurant downstairs with a video store next to it.

Jatin and Sita arrive at the house. Jatin and Ashok are brothers. The family talks. Jatin leaves
for an appointment. Radha takes Sita to her room, explaining that when Biji rings her bell,
she needs something. In her room, Sita puts on a pair of jeans and dances to music. Radha
opens Sita's door, taking her by surprise. The two women go into the main room where Biji
is. Biji rings her bell, disturbed by the sight of Sita in the jeans. Sita goes back to her room to
change clothes.

Meanwhile, Jatin paints his Chinese-Indian girlfriend Julie's (Alice Poon) toenails. He tells
her that he cannot live without her.

Ashok sits with a group of followers of his religious leader/swami, Swamiji (Ram Gopal
Bajaj), who talks to them. Ashok says one should test oneself against temptation until desire
leaves the body.

Ashok and Radha work at the restaurant with Sita helping. Mundu (Ranjit Chowdhry), the
family's manservant, carries Biji, who likes watching them work, upstairs. Ashok tells Sita
that when she has a baby, caring for it will become her full-time job. Sita wonders why this
subject matter came up. Radha explains to her that she cannot have a baby.

6|Page
Upstairs, Mundu jerks off in front of the reposed Biji to a porno movie. Biji moans in
disturbance. Mundu tells her to shut up. Sita comes in and Mundu manages to compose
himself, not getting caught. Sita sees that Biji's disturbed. Mundu talks about the program he
has on the TV, wherein the goddess Sita's purity is being tested.

Jatin tells Ashok that he felt he had no choice in marrying Sita, due to his nagging. Jatin
accuses Ashok of doing everything he does for Swamiji. Ashok hits Jatin. A few moments
later, Ashok tells Radha to forgive him, saying to her, "My choices have made life difficult
for you." Radha responds, "What is there to forgive?"

That night, Jatin and Sita have sex for the first time - a loveless, mechanical act. Jatin lies
back and goes to sleep. Sita cleans her blood off of the bed's sheet.

The next day or so, Jatin and Sita talk. He suggests that she find something to do. They argue.
Sita tells him that he should not leave his picture of Julie laying around.

The family is about to clean up downstairs. Ashok gives Radha and Jatin some money. Jatin
asks how long Ashok will support Swamiji. Ashok says Swamiji doesn't ask for money; he
gives to the swami willingly.

That night, Ashok lies in a bed next to Radha, testing himself to see if he will be tempted by
her sexuality. She gets up and asks him if she could have children, would he need her? He
says, probably not. Ashok tells Radha that by helping him with his tests, she's doing her duty
as his wife.1

Sita and Radha meet on the roof of the building that Ashok's family lives in. Sita says Jatin
has gone to meet his girlfriend. In the street below, a marriage ceremony takes place.

Later, Radha finds Sita crying in her room. Sita says that she wants to go home. Radha
comforts Sita. Sita kisses her on the mouth and Radha leaves.

In the field from the prologue, Radha's mom cries. She tells young Radha to look at the fields
and what they've become. Radha says they look the same. Radha's mom says, "Close your
eyes." Young Radha answers, "I still can't see."

1
Jain, Madhu; Raval, Sheela (21 December 1998), "Ire over Fire", India Today, retrieved 2008-03-14

7|Page
That night, Radha gets up and looks at the sleeping Ashok in his separate bed. Elsewhere,
Jatin and Julie talk for awhile, then they kiss passionately.

Radha and Sita have tea together and talk. Sita says that someone can push a button on her
back marked tradition, and she will respond.

Radha and Sita fast together. Radha tells a story of a king, a queen and a maidservant to Sita
and Mundu that ends with the queen fasting in order to win back her husband's love. Radha
explains that the women fast to prove how much they love their husbands. Sita says that the
queen was a wimp and the king was a jerk. Radha summarizes that the queen didn't have
many choices.

Radha and Sita finish the ceremony on the roof of the building they live in. Biji sleeps in her
bed. A bit later, Sita gets up, goes to Radha's bedroom and wakes her up. Sita kisses Radha
and the two make love. The next morning, Sita asks, "Did we do anything wrong?" Radha
answers "no." Sita exits Radha's bedroom under Biji's watchful eye.

The next day, Radha and Sita bestow jewelry upon each other while Mundu looks at them.
Later, the two couples sit outside, having eaten some food. Sita massages Radha's foot while
Ashok watches, thinking nothing of it.

In the family's house, Jatin prepares to go out amid his relatives. Ashok tells him that he's not
going. Sita tells Ashok to let him go. Radha asks Ashok if he's going to Swamiji's and he says
after Biji finishes dinner, he will. Biji rings her bell at length and Ashok assumes that she
doesn't want him to leave.

That night, before a crowd in public, some men act out a part of the Ramayana wherein Lord
Ram tests the goddess Sita's purity by having her go into a fire. Ashok and Swamiji watch
them.

Radha and Sita kiss outside on the roof of the building. Ashok calls Radha and after awhile,
she comes to him. He asks her, "Why didn't you come?" She says that Sita says the concept
of duty is overrated. Ashok tells Radha to prepare for him to test himself with her and she
says not tonight.

In their bedroom, Jatin starts to mount Sita, but she doesn't want to have sex, so he lays off.

8|Page
The next day, Radha and Sita dance together in front of Biji to jubilant Indian music. Biji
looks on disapprovingly as the two women sink to the floor together. Mundu watches in the
next room.

Later in the video store, Jatin convinces some young boys to buy a porno movie from him.
Mundu takes one of the porno movies upstairs to jerk off to while Biji watches in horror.
Radha walks in and catches him. She slaps him, asking him where he got the movie. He says
that Jatin rents them to special customers. She tells him to get out, and he says that the
"hanky panky" between her and Sita isn't good for the family name.

Radha asks Ashok to get rid of Mundu, but Ashok insists that he stays. On the roof, she and
Sita meet and talk. Sita says that even if Mundu mentions what he's seen, no one will believe
him. Radha admits she is not so different than Mundu, in his selfishness.2

Jatin recites some of Swamiji's words to Sita in their room. He tells her that he cannot stop
seeing Julie, mentioning some of Julie's good traits. He says Sita can leave him, but that life
can be difficult for a divorced woman. The other option, he says, is for Sita to have a baby
with him. She calls him a "pompous fool." They slap each other. He says he likes her new
feistiness and kisses her on the mouth. She looks at him with displeasure, so he knocks her
down and leaves.

On the roof, Radha sees a bruise on Sita's face and asks her if it hurts. Sita says she's treated
"like a household pet" and "that's what hurts." The women hug each other.

In the restaurant later, Ashok carries Biji upstairs, leaving Radha with a singing Mundu.
Radha's gaze is contemptuous. Jatin announces to everyone that he won't be back tonight and
leaves. Mundu sits down and stares at a photo of Biji, Jatin, Radha and Sita, with everyone
crossed out except for Radha, who has a heart drawn around her head.

Alone together, Radha tells Sita that a long time ago, Ashok took a vow of celibacy. She
explains what he does with her to prove he's beyond temptation and therefore closer to God.
Radha tells her that he's done this for 13 years. Radha and Sita hug each other. Mundu listens
at the door outside. Sita says they're not going to stay there any longer.

Mundu pulls Ashok away from Swamiji, but then says nothing. Later, the two men go
upstairs to the house. Ashok tells Mundu to pack his bags and get out of the house before he
calls the police.
2
Bearak, Barry (24 December 1998), "A Lesbian Idyll, and the Movie Theaters Surrender", New York Times, retrieved 2008-
03-12

9|Page
Inside the house, Ashok listens at the door outside the room where Radha and Sita make love.
He slams open the door, startling them and catching them in the act. He walks away, then
exits the house.

The women decide to leave, with Sita saying that there's no word in their language for what
they are. Radha says she has to talk to Ashok one last time, to tell him that her leaving is
about her. Radha tells Sita that she should leave and they will meet later tonight. Sita packs
her belongings to leave. In the main room, Biji rings her bell as Sita leaves. Radha steps close
to Biji, who then sits up and spits in her face. Downstairs, Ashok freaks out, thinking about
his wife in intimacy with Sita.

Ashok goes to Radha in the kitchen and tells her to come to the bedroom, so that he can test
himself again. She refuses, saying that she's going to leave him. Ashok says that what he saw
in their bedroom is a sin in the eyes of God and man. She openly repudiates his thinking that
desire is wrong. Ashok snaps, throwing himself upon her. She rejects his touch. He says,
"Touch my feet," then pushes her aside. Her sari catches fire on the stove.

Ashok stares at Radha for a moment, then picks up Biji and goes to the door.

Back at the field from the prologue, young Radha closes her eyes and then says she can see
the ocean.

At the agreed-upon meeting place, Sita stands in the rain. She sees Radha shuffle over to her,
looking shaken. Radha leans against a wall for support. Sita goes over to her and comforts
her.

SUMMARY

The internationally acclaimed film, which was released uncut in India, played for three weeks
before Hindu fundamentalist formations denounced it as obscene, immoral and offensive to
Indian culture and the Hindu religion, and attempted to have it banned.
The extreme right-wing Shiv Sena movement organised demonstrations, forcing the closure
of several Bombay and New Delhi cinemas. It issued a statement declaring: If women's
physical needs are fulfilled through lesbian acts, the institution of marriage will collapse and
the reproduction of human beings will stop.
Members of the organisation stormed cinemas, tearing down posters and smashing windows.
Demonstrations were organised outside the home of one of the film's stars. Protesters
threatened two actors and a director who publicly defended the film. Mehta also received a

10 | P a g e
number of death threats. The film was withdrawn from cinemas, pending another censorship
review, but later re-released uncut. Extreme-right wing elements are still trying to have the
film banned.
Fire was the first of a trilogy of films by Mehta set in India. Earth , the second in the series,
was released in 1998 and the third, Water , was due to begin shooting in Uttar Pradesh early
this year. In late January Hindu fundamentalists wrecked her set in Varanasi, claiming that
the film, about the plight of poverty-stricken widows in the 1930s, would be anti-Hindu. The
Uttar Pradesh government claimed that Mehta was responsible for the disorder and banned
production of the film in that state. Mehta has vowed to make the film and plans to resume
filming at another location in India later in the year.
The World Socialist Web Site is campaigning to defend Mehta (see statement: Oppose Hindu
extremist attacks on Indian filmmaker), insisting that fundamental issues of democratic rights
and artistic freedom are involved.
________________________________________
Deepa Mehta's film Fire, when it was released in 1997, became a focus of attention of film
lovers and critics the world over. Some time ago the film was shown at the Majestic Cinema
in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The film, which has India as its background, and is made in English,
deals with the development of a loving sexual relationship between two Indian women. The
extraordinary courage shown by Mehta who wrote and directed the film has made Fire a
fascinating artistic experience, and has also won for the director the admiration of art lovers
the world over.
The film centres on events in the life of a Hindu family living in the outskirts of Delhi. A
character in the filmJutin, describes this family as a joint family. In this kind of family,
which as a result of the uneven development of India contains feudal social vestiges
combined with the bourgeois way of life, the parents, married children and their families all
live together under one roof.
The family portrayed in the film consists of an aged bed-ridden mother, her two sons Ashok
(Kulbhushan Karbandha) and Jutin (Javed Jaffri) and their wives. A manservant called
Mundu who helps with the household chores also lives in the house. The family depends for
its livelihood on the income from a fast-food outlet and a video rental business adjoining the
house. The elder son Ashok manages the business while the younger son helps him. Their
respective wives, Radha (Shabana Asmi) and Sita (Nandita Das), prepare the food for the
fast-food outlet.
Jutin, behind the back of his elder brother, has turned the video rental into a den of illegal
transactions where blue films are rented out to young children. Jutin, who is unmarried at the
beginning of the film, spends part of the money he acquires this way to maintain a
relationship with a woman hairdresser called Julie who has immigrated with her parents to
India from Hong Kong.
The elder brother Ashok spends a considerable amount of his income to look after a religious
guru whom he closely associates with and is in the habit of visiting regularly. Ashok tries to
impress on his family that his obviously eccentric relationship with the guru would help to
detach himself from sensual pleasures and ultimately attain universal truth. When doctors

11 | P a g e
reveal that Radha is unable to bear children, Ashok becomes a brahmacharinone who
relies on refraining completely from sex to gain religious and spiritual advancement.
Apparently he has turned his wife's incapacity to conceive into a ladder on which to climb up
to moksha or spiritual freedom. As part of this exercise he forces his wife to lie beside him on
the bed so as to prove to himselfaccording to Gandhian traditionhis powers of resisting
sensual desires. Radha, to all appearance a traditional woman, consents to her husband's
demand, but the viewer can clearly sense the burning sense of injustice consuming her.
Jutin's girl friend Julie, who has absorbed bourgeois tastes and habits, will not consent to
marry into a traditional joint-family. When Ashok entreats Jutin to marry, so as to provide
the family with a son to carry on the family name, he weds Sita and brings her home while
continuing his relationship with Julie. Sitaa cheerful, light hearted, lovable young woman
is rather out of place in the sombre and gloomy atmosphere of the traditional household until
she manages to build up a friendly relationship with her sister-in-law.
Jutin cruelly snubs Sita's attempts to build up a close relationship with him. Only when the
elder brother reminds him of the necessity of having a son does Jutin condescendingly
approach Sita with the intention of having sex. Jutin seems to gloat over the fact that he is
only fulfilling his family's wish in having sex with Sita. Needless to say his sexual behavior
revolts the spectator. Sita is capable of uncovering the reasons behind the peculiarities in
Jutin's behavior only after some time.
The spectator senses the sometimes open and often veiled derision of the two husbands
towards their respective wives. The main theme of the film Fire is the development of a
mutually supportive and affectionate relationship between the two women, a relationship that
is gradually transformed into sexual love.
Mundu becomes aware of the nature of the relationship between the two women and informs
the master of the house, who then spies on the women. Radha has to bear the brunt of
Ashok's jealous and bitter anger. The seemingly harmonious life of the family is shattered
and the two women decide to go away to a distant place and begin life anew on their own. On
the day they plan to leave Radha suggests that Sita leave the house first so Radha can try and
explain things to Ashok.
Radha's attempt to explain things to Ashok only leads to a terrible quarrel. It is clear that
Ashok, who is deeply disturbed after witnessing the sexual behavior of the two women, is in
no mood to listen to Radha's explanations.
The quarrel between Radha and Ashok takes place in the kitchen and Radha's saree
unexpectedly catches fire. Ashok who had been asserting all his male authority to substantiate
his condemnation of Radha is unable even to raise a hand to put out the flames enveloping
her.
It is significant that precisely at this moment the spectator is made aware that the fire
enveloping Radha is being transformed (by the maker of the film) into a character of the
filma character with a symbolic significance. No doubt the fact that the film has been
named Fire also helps the spectator to arrive at this awareness.
According to ancient Hindu tradition, fire or Agni is the constantly present purifying god of
the household on whom also falls the task of bearing witness to the chastity of women and

12 | P a g e
accordingly deciding their fates. In the ancient Indian epic Ramayana it is the heroine Sita
(Rama's wife who had been forcibly taken away by Ravana the king of Lanka and kept in his
palace as a prisoner for a considerable time) on her return to Rama's kingdom, has to prove
her chastity by Agni-Pareeksha (literally a test by firethe accused is made to enter a fire
and emerge unhurt to prove her innocence). Agni does not harm Sita, thus proving her
chastity. Similarly in the film, Agni, by not harming Radha establishes her chastity. Agni
releases Radha from his flames physically safe and sound, though her blackened saree and
smudged face bear traces of the ordeal. Radha is able to meet Sita as previously arranged.
It is clear that the artist herself speaks through Agni. Here it is necessary to emphasise that
the artist's unreserved sympathy for Radha also finds full justification in the realistic portrayal
of social forces in the film. The film sequence of the Agni Pareeksha, which carries to a
dramatic climax the chain of events in the householdcontains within it the ability to
passionately involve the viewer in the portrayed situation; and this ability bears witness to the
integrity of Deepa Mehta as an artist.

It is obvious that God Agni, in giving his verdict in favor of Radha, has aligned himself with
a traditionally frowned upon relationship (between Radha and Sita), rejecting outright the
institutionalised relationship between husband and wife (Ashok and Radha). Thus Agni
endorses a relationship, which, although not traditionally accepted in class society, is honest,
aesthetically appealing and spiritually rich against a dishonest, spiritually bankrupt,
institutionalised traditional relationship in class society. Therefore the Agni we come to know
in the film Fire is a revolutionary god.
The relationship between Radha and Sita, as it is portrayed in the film, wins not only the
whole-hearted sympathy of the spectator but also unreserved respect. The great artistic power
of Fire lies in its ability to make the spectator sympathise and respect a relationship that in
ordinary day-to-day life is generally not approved of.
Some critics have described Fire0 as a film that supports lesbianism. Fire sympathetically
depicts the development of a loving sexual relationship between two women, but the film's
success is not simply due to this fact. The film's artistic power lies in its appeal for
enlightened, loving and spiritually satisfying relationships between human beings.
The realistic depiction by the film of institutionalised traditional relationships in class society
generates within the spectator revulsion and hatred towards such relationships.
The brutal and revolting nature of the sexual relationship bound up with institutionalised
traditional marriage in class society is powerfully revealed through Jutin's sexual attitude
towards his wife. The mental agony undergone by Radha in having to lie beside Ashok in bed
so as to provide him with an opportunity to prove to himself his powers of resisting sensual
pleasures is powerfully conveyed through Shabana Asmi's sensitive and controlled acting.
The two brothers consider the nursing of their aged, bed-ridden mother to be the duty of their
wives. We never see Jutin speak a gentle word to his mother. Radha nurses her mother-in-law
like one fulfilling a ritual.

13 | P a g e
The family depicted in Fire is fundamentally an economic unit, bound together by an
enfeebled system of mutual social duties and it easily succumbs to the pressures borne out of
its contradictions.
The film's appeal is certainly not for unconventional relationships against conventional ones.
The sexual relationship between Jutin and Juliethough unconventional is also depicted as
one devoid of love, gentleness and beautymerely seeking the gratification of brutal sexual
instincts. The maker of the film has consciously sought to contrast the loving sexual
relationship developing between Radha and Sita with the sexual relationship existing between
Jutin and Julie. That the film's appeal is for enlightened, loving and spiritually satisfying
relationships between human beings is crystal clear.
In an interview published in the Sunday Leader on March 8, 1998 Deepa Mehta said it had
become an unpleasant task for her to counter interpretations of Fire as a film that idealised
and promoted lesbianism.
I love the film Fire. I am proud of my film. The questions you raise prompted by your
middle class upbringing forces me to defend Fire. This is a situation I do not like at all. I am
not obliged to defend any thing in the film Fire. The question here is not whether one chooses
to engage in homosexual and heterosexual relationships or whether one chooses to engage in
only heterosexual relationships. The question is the necessity to choose a life of dignity and
self-fulfillment.
This film does not speak for lesbianism. It is also not necessary for me to play down the
lesbian relationship between the two women; but my film does not say if one is caught in a
bad marriage relationship one should begin a homo-sexual relationship. I am not a feminist
who downgrades men. I think men are as important as women.
The performance of a folk play based on the mythical Rama-Sita story in the film also helps
deepen the spectator's understanding of the destructive results of the oppression of women in
class society. This kind of folk play has long been part of the traditional social life of the
Indian masses and lays bare their thoughts and feelings. In the play Rama says: Agni bore
witness to your [Sita's] chastity. Even so, I have to banish you. A woman in the film viewing
the folk play cries as Sita is banished. It is not difficult to understand that she is in some way
identifying herself with Sita.
The servant Mundu represents another facet of life in bourgeois society. He is even more
oppressedeconomically, socially and culturallythan the two women, Radha and Sita,
who belong to a relatively better off layer of middle class society. Through Mundu's character
is depicted the intellectual and emotional retardedness, as well as certain psychological
maladies, produced in man by the outmoded bourgeois social system.
The talents of actors and actresses have contributed much towards the artistic power of the
film. Shabana Asmi and Nandita Das not only bring to life the characters they portray but
also accomplish the difficult task of winning the viewer's sympathy and respect for a sexual
relationship between two women.
Fire also enables the spectator to breathe in the social atmosphere of an Indian suburb. The
folk play Rama and Sita, and the marriage procession (Radha and Sita watch it from the
balcony of their house) that takes to the streets at night enlivened by song and dance deserve

14 | P a g e
 special mention. Radha and Sita, dressed in gleaming colorful sarees with necklaces and
bangles to match, are a visual treat. India has inherited not only a tradition of repressing
sensual desires and seeking Moksha, but also a tradition of refined aesthetic enjoyment of
life.
The film sequence of an early morning backed up with appropriate music by A.R. Rahman is
also memorable. As night fades, along the motorway bathed in early morning light, an
unending line of vehicles including three-wheelers and motor cycles speed towards the town.
Not only the motorway and the vehicles but also the advertisements put up on the sides of the
motorway bespeak the pathetic attempt by an underdeveloped backward nation to ape the
developed bourgeois countries. As the neighborhood emerges from its slumbers we see
Mundu covering himself with a sheet of cloth seated on the doorstep waiting for the milkman
to arrive. The light in the sky thickens as if pregnant, not only with secrets carried on from
by-gone days, but also with a new life striving to be born.
Radha and Sita as we see them at the end of the film are clearly marked by the harrowing
experiences they have been through. Radha's sad and discolored face speaks volumes of the
deep hurt and humiliation embedded in her heart. Sita's usually cheerful face is unsmiling and
grave. The old dilapidated building where the two women meet each other is made even more
gloomy and doleful by an unexpected downpour. The spectator is left in no doubt that the
road ahead for the two women will not be an easy and smooth one.3

CONTROVERSY

On November 25 1998, some two dozen men belonging to the Jain Samata Vahini of
Mumbai requested Maharashtra's Minister of State for Cultural Affairs Anil Deshmukh to
ban Deepa Mehta's film Fire.

Forward to December 2, Cinemax theatre in suburban Goregaon in Mumbai. The matinee

show of Fire was almost halfway through in a packed house when a group of rampaging
women belonging to the Shiv Sena Mahila Aghadi - the women's wing of the Sena - barged
into the theatre.
Accompanied by MLA R. Mirlekar, they smashed glass panes, burnt posters and shouted
slogans. Soon after, the manager of the up-market New Empire in south Mumbai downed his
shutters.

3
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/05/fire-m02.html

1.
2.

15 | P a g e
Next day it was Delhi. At 12.40 p.m., a handful of the Sena's female foot soldiers hit Regal
cinema like a tornado, pulling down posters and breaking glass panes as if on cue. It was all
over in 15 minutes.

As Fire producer Bobby Bedi says, "The Delhi Sena chief 's letter informing the press about
the demonstration said that they would do tod-phod and violence was expected ... almost as if
tea will be served." After the attack on Regal, three other theatres stopped screening the film.

The same day in Pune, Fire stopped unspooling. As it did in Surat after Bajrang Dal workers
with lathis invaded the twin theatres, Rajpalace and Rajmahal, breaking up everything in
sight and forcing the audience to flee.

It continued to spread like a bush fire - until Calcutta, where the enraged audience and ushers
shooed away the so-called guardians of public morality.

There obviously was a method in the madness - a hooliganism that had state protection. On
the eve of their attack on Cinemax, the Mahila Aghadi women called on state Culture
Minister Pramod Navalkar to protest against the depiction of the "lesbian relationship"
between Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das in the film. They even demand Azmi's resignation
from the Rajya Sabha.4

While Navalkar obviously gave the green signal, Chief Minister Manohar Joshi egged them
on, even patting them on their backs.

LAWS REGARDING LGBT RIGHTS

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, introduced during British rule of India, criminalizes
"carnal intercourse against the order of nature". This phrase was interpreted to mean all forms
of sexual activity other than heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse.

The movement to repeal Section 377 was led by the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, a non-
governmental organization, which filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking
legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults.This was the second such
petition, the first filed in 1994 by AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan.In 2003, the Delhi High
Court refused to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the
petitioners had no locus standi in the matter. Naz Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court
of India against the decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition on technical grounds.

4
Vanita, Ruth (2002), Queering India (Book), New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-92950-4

16 | P a g e
The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a public interest
lawsuit in this case, and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on the
merits.

In 2006, the National AIDS Control Organisation filed an affidavit stating that the
enforcement of Section 377 violates LGBT rights. Subsequently, there was a significant
intervention in the case by a Delhi-based coalition of LGBT, women's and human rights
activists called "Voices Against 377", which supported the demand to "read down" section
377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview.5

Judgement
The case came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and
Justice S. Muralidhar, and the judgment was delivered on 2 Jul 2009. The Court located the
rights to dignity and privacy within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21
(under the fundamental Right to Freedom charter) of the Constitution, and held that
criminalization of consensual gay sex violated these rights.

The Court also held that Section 377 offends the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14
(under the fundamental Right to Equality charter) of the Constitution, because it creates an
unreasonable classification and targets homosexuals as a class. Public animus and disgust
towards a particular social group or vulnerable minority, it held, is not a valid ground for
classification under Article 14. Article 15 of the Constitution forbids discrimination based on
certain characteristics, including sex. The Court held that the word "sex" includes not only
biological sex but also sexual orientation, and therefore discrimination on the ground of
sexual orientation is not permissible under Article 15. The Court also noted that the right to
life under Article 21 includes the right to health, and concluded that Section 377 is an
impediment to public health because it hinders HIV-prevention efforts.

The Court did not strike down Section 377 as a whole. The section was declared
unconstitutional insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private. The
judgement keeps intact the provision insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal
intercourse and intercourse with minors. The court stated that the judgement would hold until
Parliament chose to amend the law.
Then the case was challenged in supreme court.
It was further argued by the Respondents that Section 377, in so far as it criminalizes
consensual sexual activities between two adults of the same sex and heterosexual penile non
vaginal sexual intercourse between consenting adults is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of
the Indian Constitution. With regard to the first issue, the petitioners argued that Section 377,
on the face of it, does not mention or classify any particular group or gender and hence is not

5
The Naz Foundation Trust, "History's Flirtation with Fire", 1 August 1999. Accessed 7 March 2008.

17 | P a g e
violative of Article 14 and 15 and 21 respectively. The Court accepted their arguments and
held that Section 377 is not violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 and that carnal intercourse, as
intended and defined by the petitioners to mean unnatural lust ought to be punished. Justice
Singhvi also said that Section 377 is a pre-constitutional legislation and if it were violative of
any of the rights guaranteed under Part III, then the Parliament would have noticed the same
and repealed the section long ago. Based on this reasoning, he declared the section to be
constitutionally valid. He also said that doctrine of severability and the practice of reading
down a particular section flows from the presumption of constitutionality and that in the said
case, the Delhi High Courts decision to read down the section was wrong because there is no
part of the section that can be severed without affecting the section as a whole which also
happens to be the only law which governs cases of paedophilia and tyke sexual abuses and
assaults. So, the Supreme Court held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code does not
suffer from any constitutional infirmity and left the matter to the competent legislature to
consider the desirability and legitimacy of deleting the Section from the statute book or
altering the same to allow consensual sexual activity between two adults of the same sex in
private.

CONCLUSION
The film, which has India as its background, and is made in English, deals with the
development of a loving sexual relationship between two Indian women. The extraordinary
courage shown by Mehta who wrote and directed the film has made Fire a fascinating artistic
experience, and has also won for the director the admiration of art lovers the world over.
Though we are already in the 21st century but still right for LGBT are not observed till date.
The court observed consensual sexual activities between two adults of the same sex should
not be regulated by a law as it violates their Fundamental Rights and a persons choice of
sexual accomplice is no business of the State to regulate on. Section 377 is abused to
brutalize the persons belonging to the gay community. Popular morality, as distinct from
constitutional morality as derived from constitutional values, is based on shifting notions of
right and wrong and as of today, a large chunk of elite population is in favor of the LGBT
rights and hence, this shows that the State is not even going by the popular morality but by its
own morality and if there is any type of morality that can pass the test of compelling state
interest, it should be constitutional morality.
We need a society where everyone is given equal rights. There has been a shift in the laws of
several countries regarding the rights of LGBTs. India should take example from countries
like USA who have recently observed LGBT rights. Neil Patrick Harris led the movement in
USA for observation of LGBT rights so some important personality should also spearhead a
movement like this in India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Websites

18 | P a g e
 www.theatrehistory.com
https://www.enotes.com Study Guides
https://www.gutenberg.org/files
www.encyclopedia.com

19 | P a g e