This was as per the date they had given at the last time the matter came up, at the end of last year, when the Court said it would set aside several days for the hearings. It was the last matter listed for the bench, which is now of Justices Singhvi and Mukhopadhyay, and we were not sure if they would take it up, but they did.

Please note, it is still quite possible that the matter might be deferred. It is possible that once the judges realize how many parties are involved in this matter, and how most of them will want their time in court, the judges may just decide they don’t have the time at the moment and defer the hearings. We should get a better picture on this from tomorrow in Court.

But if it does get taken up, be assured that all the parties on our side are prepared and ready. This includes Naz India and Voices Against 377, who were the original parties in the Delhi High Court verdict, along with interventions from a group of parents of lgbt kids, a group of senior mental health professionals, a group of senior academics and Shyam Benegal. Against us there are some 13 odd petitions, lead by Suresh Kaushal, the TV astrologer, whose petition was the only one that got heard today.

I am linking below to a IBNlive report which mentions how Kaushal’s counsel’s opening tactic was to argue that the judgment creates a problem by being only meant for Delhi, but with a question mark over its applicability to other states. This seems to me to be a technicality because in the Indian law system judgments can be quoted and applied across the country, and the judges too don’t seem to have much patience with this line of argument.

Beyond this what I’ve gathered from sources is that the counsel went to argue that personal liberty cannot be unrestricted and uncontrolled. He also seemed to suggest that the judgment was unnecessary since if the sex was consensual then why would any complaints be filed. The simple answer to that would seem to be that this does not take into account situations of blackmail or where the threat of the law is used to coerce people.

The lawyer argued that the High Court’s legalising of homosexuality would lead to certain situations. “Suppose today a lady enters into such a profession (presumably sex work) she is hit by a statute, but if a man goes to a gay parlor there is no legislation”. At this point the Court said the matter would be carried over to the next day, so we will have to wait and see where this is going.

Let me repeat that while this is the next step we have been waiting and preparing for, it is still quite possible that things will be deferred. Even if they are not, the hearings may take time and it would still be quite a while before any verdict comes from the Court. So please lets not except any dramatic developments.

It is possible that there might be more media attention plus general comment online or perhaps even in real life conversations on this issue. If this happens we would strongly suggest that people are restrained in their comments on our opponents and refrain from getting into the crudeness that we know will probably come our way in comments on line and other places.

The most effective way to answer such views is always with politeness, logic and pointing to the strong human rights arguments on our side. This is what we will be doing in court, and what we should do outside court as well.

IBNLIVE report is at http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/sc-begins-adjudicating-gay-sex-issue-to-continue-hearing-it/962968.html