Proposed Penal Code amendment and threat of promotion of sexual abuse of children – V

by Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director
Lawyers for Human Rights and Development   

(Part IV of this article appeared in The Island of 14 June 2023)

Dolawatta’s counsel Sanjeewa Jayawardane’s argument: ‘‘SC cannot impose upon a law a moral standard or moral point of view or social morality, with regard to a Bill that offends no provision of the Constitution. Even if the Court was of the view that repealing S. 365A would encourage persons of whatever sexual orientation to behave in an indecent manner in public and whether such conduct is, in the view of the Court, is morally repugnant and against the social and cultural ethic of this country, that would not be a matter for this Court but one that is entirely left at the door step of the Legislature. ’’  – P. 19

‘‘The real issue before this Court in connection with this Bill is: Whether there exists any constitutional impediment to the repeal of identified criminal offences?… Parliament’s power to decriminalize activities is significantly broader as restriction or abridgement of fundamental rights are less likely to occur in such instances. …. P. 22

 ‘‘Thus, a petitioner who seeks to claim that decriminalisation of an act violates the Constitution must demonstrate that the Constitution imposes a requirement for the act to continue to be criminalised. This is a high burden. … In this determination we are tasked with the question of whether the repeal of laws which criminalise intimate acts between consenting adults is unconstitutional. Naturally, the burden is even higher for the petitioners as the original law had been introduced to further certain ‘moral’ norms as opposed to protecting the life, limb or property of persons. This leads us to the question of whether there is any constitutional prohibition decriminalising an offence that seeks to impose moral standards.

 Case of the 2nd respondent and other supporting intervenient petitioners:                                              ‘‘(a) the cumulative effect of the Bill, as captured in Clause (2) (iii), is that sexual orientation of a person shall no longer be a punishable offence, and any consensual conduct between two adult persons of the same sex, irrespective of whether it takes place in private or public, shall no longer be an offence;

‘‘(b) the Bill seeks to catapult Sri Lanka from the latter part of the anachronistic Victorian era firmly into the 21st century with contemporary social mores, and thereby restore the Rule of the Law which facilitates equality, liberty and dignity in all its facets for those whose sexual orientation is different from the majority;

‘‘© pursuant to decriminalising homosexuality by way of the Sexual Offences Act, the UK has called upon other members of the Commonwealth to follow suit. – P.

Other intervenient petitioners supporting the Bill: ‘‘Approximately 12% of the citizens of this country belong to the homosexual community and they live in constant fear of the possible use of S, 365A against them, purely based on their sexual orientation. The mere existence of S. 365A has a ‘chilling effect’ on an individual’s wellbeing and even though such an individual is subject to discrimination, seeking redress is nearly impossible because any disclosure of such discrimination based on sexual orientation can result in prosecution. The Bill seeks to remove the discrimination and the discrimination attached to the sexual orientation of a group of persons, restore, enhance and protect the FR guaranteed to such group by the Constitution.

‘‘Counsel drew our attention to certain documented incidents of harassment and humiliation that members of the LGBT community have had to undergo due to the presence of S. 365 and S. 365A simply due to their sexual orientation. It is perhaps relevant to state that as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, a person suspected of an offence under S. 365 and S. 365A can be arrested without a warrant and that both offences are non-bailable.

‘‘The continued maltreatment of individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, including unnecessary and forced anal and vaginal examinations and arrests made based merely on appearance constitute an assault to the dignity of these individuals who undergo severe mental/psychological suffering as a result, thus attracting the provisions in Article 11, a non-derogable and entrenched provision.

‘‘The importance of the above analysis is that a law will face a stiff burden if it were to impinge upon human dignity of a person in criminalising offences to safeguard morality. It would be even more difficult to argue that such a law must be maintained and cannot be repealed. We are of the view that the decriminalisation of sexual activity amongst consenting adults irrespective of their sexual orientation only furthers human dignity and as such this cannot be considered as being an offence that must be maintained in the statute book. – P. 30

‘‘ASG submitted that it is ironic for the petitioners to claim that the provisions of the Bill are violative of Article 12(1) when the very essence of the Bill is to ensure that all persons are equal before the law and are afforded the equal protection of the law. – P. 32

‘‘Having carefully considered the submissions of the Counsel, we are of the view that the removal of criminalization of intimate acts between consenting adults, which crime was based on moral imperatives of a bygone Victorian era, would be in conformity with the Article 12(1) and would uphold the dignity of human beings. This Court has no mandate to interfere with such a decision, which is the prerogative of Parliament. – P. 36

‘‘Given that the right to privacy is a facet of the right to live with dignity, there is simply no basis for this Court to come to the conclusion that there is a constitutional obligation to criminalise homosexual activities engaged in private by consenting adults, as that is a matter that is inherently private and intimate. If Parliament wishes to decriminalise such activities this Court cannot stand in its way. – P. 40

‘‘There is one other matter that we must advert to. This Court inquired from Mr.  Jayawardana, PC the necessity to delete S. 365A in its entirety and whether it would suffice if the word ‘private’ is deleted, given that paragraph (iii) of Clause 2 specifically states that ‘‘ The intent of the legislature in enacting this legislation must be considered as amending the  provisions that makes sexual orientation a punishable offence.’’ His response was twofold. The first was that this is a matter that is entirely for Parliament to decide. The second was that in the absence of a definition of ‘any act of gross indecency’ in S. 365A, the said provision is not only vague, overbroad and subjective but can be arbitrary in its implementation, thus violating Art. 12(1). Mr. Hewamana has presented affidavits of 3 persons who have been subjected to harassment, humiliation and degrading treatment at the hands of their own families as well as by law enforcement authorities due to their sexual orientation, in order to support the position that due to its vague and overbroad nature, S. 365A can be arbitrary in its implementation.

 ‘‘ASG submitted further that even if S. 365A deleted in its entirety, behaving indecently in public can still be addressed under S. 7(1)(b) of the Vagrants Ordinance as well as S. 261 of the PC, without having to criminalise one’s sexual orientation. – P 41

‘‘It must perhaps be reiterated that the intent of the Legislature in enacting the Bill is to repeal the laws that make sexual orientation a punishable offence. That does not mean that men or women or for that matter transgender persons can frequent public places in a manner that creates a nuisance to others using such public places, or that they can engage in any other illegal acts or behave in a manner that affects the rights, health or property of others. However, we must reiterate that this is a matter that comes within the legislative policy of the State which shall be guided by the provisions of Articles 27 and 75. It is a matter that is within the legislative power of the People which shall be exercised by Parliament in trust for the People.

Conclusion

‘‘The provisions of the Bill would in fact ensure that all persons shall be equal before the law and be entitled to equal protection of the law irrespective of their sexual orientation, and the Bill would in fact enhance their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and enable them to live in society with dignity. We are of the view that the submissions of the Petitioners are in fact fanciful hypotheses, and have no merit.

‘‘In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the Petitioners have failed to establish that (a) the repeal (in the manner proposed in the Bill) of Ss. 365 and 365A of the Penal Code which criminalise intimate acts between consenting adults is unconstitutional;

(b) the Bill as a whole or any Clause therein is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution.

‘‘We are of the opinion that the Bill as a whole or any provision thereof is not inconsistent with the Constitution.’’

(To be continued)