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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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 film—Jutin, 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 reveal that
Radha is unable to bear children, Ashok becomes a “brahmacharin”—one 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
himself—according to Gandhian tradition—his “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. Sita—a 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 film—a 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
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 fire—the 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 household—contains 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.
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 Julie—though unconventional is also depicted as one
devoid of love, gentleness and beauty—merely 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
oppressed—economically, socially and culturally—than 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 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.
\
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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.