BJP supports Section 377 of the IPC, backs SC verdict
BJP chief Rajnath Singh said that the party would support Section 377 as they believed that homosexuality was an un-natural act
While initially party leaders had refused to take a stand on whether they support the order or not, BJP President Rajnath Singh has said that if the government convenes an all-party meeting on the issue, his party will support Section 377 of IPC which bans homosexuality.
“If an all-party meeting is called, we will support Section 377 as we believe that homosexuality is an un-natural act. We cannot support it,” Singh said.
Earlier when this question was posed to Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj and her Rajya Sabha counterpart Arun Jaitley at a press conference, Swaraj had said, “The Supreme Court judgement says if Parliament wants it can change it. The government can call an all-party meeting to build a consensus on the issue. We will see the government proposal in the meeting and tell our view.”
The party has been cautious in taking a stand on the issue as many BJP leaders feel opinion in the society is divided on it.
Some BJP leaders, however, appeared to be opposed to the Supreme Court order.
“Section 377 of IPC only bans sexual conduct that goes against the order of nature. A reading down of this law can be that to be born with gay tendencies cannot be against the order of nature. The court does not have to legalize or illegalize such a thing. It is not against the order of nature,” a BJP leader had said.
However, Singh’s comments are being treated as the official line of the party on this issue.
“What Rajnath Singh has said is the official stand. We have a culture and tradition and this goes against it. One cannot allow a new culture of this kind,” BJP Vice President Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said.
Refuting the stand taken by Congress President Sonia Gandhi and party vice president Rahul Gandhi, Naqvi said homosexuality is against the established norms of the society.
Sonia Gandhi has described the Supreme Court verdict as “disappointing”.