Section 377: 14 times Subramanian Swamy made homophobic comments on Twitter

The Supreme Court referred to a larger bench a plea seeking decriminalisation of gay sex between two consenting adults. Not surprisingly, Rajya Sabha MP and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who’s know for his deeply homophobic views had to add his two cents about repealing Sec 377. 

Adding his latest taunt to the LGBT community, Swamy seemed to have softened his stance saying ‘as long as they don’t celebrate it’. He said on ANI: “As long as they don't celebrate it, don't flaunt it, don't create gay bars to select partners it's not a problem. In their privacy what they do, nobody can invade but if you flaunt it, it has to be punished & therefore there has to be Section 377 of the IPC.”

As long as they don't celebrate it, don't flaunt it, don't create gay bars to select partners it's not a problem. In their privacy what they do, nobody can invade but if you flaunt it, it has to be punished & therefore there has to be #Section377 of the IPC: Subramanian Swamy pic.twitter.com/hgWtw54U3P

— ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2018

In 2015, he had tweeted that homosexuality was a ‘handicap’ writing on his wildly-popular Twitter handle: “We respect handicapped persons. Homos are genetically handicapped.”

 Here's a history of Swamy's 14 most homophobic tweets:

@SkullTalk : You need to go to a hospital. Being gay is mental disorder.

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) May 27, 2013

Good that BJP LS members solidly voted to dump in dustbin Tharoor's Pvt Bill to make Gay legitimate. Nostalgia of St Stephen days for him?

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) March 13, 2016

Legitimizing homosexuality leads to commercial profit since Gay Bars will be opened in all cities on FDI. It is a genetic flaw celebrated

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) November 29, 2015

Opposition to SC judgment on Gay sex has fizzled. TDK and Buddhu have back tracked on Ordinance

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) December 15, 2013

@CommonAadmeez; Take no notice. He must be paid by international Gay Bar investors who are now frustrated or a Homo.

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) July 1, 2015

@nonie951 : Section 377 will remain and what is to be criminal used is the flaunting of sexual preference and setting up gay bars.

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) April 11, 2014

The majority of MPs in Parliament, the Supreme Court , the Constitution, and over 84 percent of India support the SC order on gay sex.

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) December 12, 2013

The arrest by DP of a British national on charge of sodomy of young boys proves the need to retain Section 377 IPC. Or Gay Bars will sprout

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) September 5, 2017

Hilary Clinton got Russian money says New York Times. How much Lesbian Homo and Commie Harvardians get from Saudis?

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) April 24, 2015

Why has the homo debate suddenly vanished from media? Because MSM learnt BJP as a party will not support any legitimization

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) November 30, 2015

@CommonAadmeez; Take no notice. He must be paid by international Gay Bar investors who are now frustrated or a Homo.

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) July 1, 2015

@KuttyPG : Some object to using the English word "homo". So I came up with a Hindi alternative: Suffix 'G' to names of Gays.

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) December 13, 2013

@CAPMohan :It is inclusive of all alternatives including homo

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) December 12, 2013

@saltandpepper : How can I know? I think she is a friend Islamic terrorists and proclaimed Lesbian

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) December 23, 2011

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said the issue arising out of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) required to be debated upon by a larger bench.

Section 377 of the IPC refers to 'unnatural offences' and says whoever voluntarily has carnal inter course against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

The bench was hearing a fresh plea filed by one Navtej Singh Johar seeking to declare section 377 as unconstitutional to the extent that it provides prosecution of adults for indulging in consensual gay sex.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Johar, said the penal provision was unconstitutional as it also provided prosecution and sentencing of consenting adults who are indulging in such sex.

"You can't put in jail two adults who are involved in consenting unnatural sex," Datar said and referred to a recent nine-judge bench judgement in the privacy matter to highlight the point that the right to choose a sexual partner was part of fundamental right.

He also referred to the 2009 Delhi High Court judgement delivered on a plea of NGO 'Naz Foundation' in which the provision was held unconstitutional.

Subsequently, the apex court in 2014 had set aside the high court judgement and termed the provision as constitutional.

After the dismissal of the review plea against the 2014 judgement, a curative plea was filed which was referred to a larger bench.

The fresh plea of Johar and others will now also be heard by the larger bench.

With inputs from PTI