The Man Who Will Try To Convince India’s Supreme Court Gay Man Sex ‘Breeds Diseases’

Today India’s Supreme Court set April 19 to begin two days of arguments from gay activists, as well as conservative religious groups, as to whether laws criminalizing sodomy should be struck down. How’d we get here? From the Delhi High Court, sillies. Back in July 2009 that court concluded Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized gay sex (or rather, activity that violates the order of nature) between consenting adults, violated constitutionally protected rights. But in B.P. Singhal vs Union Of India & Anr. (to be India’s Lawrence v Texas), 78-year-old complainant Bharatendu Prakash Singhal (pictured), “a Hindutva ideologue,” argues gay sex goes against Indian culture and morals and should be against the law. But only gay sex between two men! After the Delhi High Court ruled against him, Singhal insisted, “It is male-to-male that is causing all the harm. Lesbians only end up in suicide. Male-to-male breeds diseases. Female-to-female are harming themselves only. When lust takes over, men pick up boys, threaten them not to go to the police.” Joining him in the fight: an astrologer (Suresh Kumar Kaushal) and a “yoga guru” (Ramdev). Expert witnesses, I’m sure. [photo via Salman Usmani]

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #b.p.singhalvsunionofindia&anr. #bharatenduprakashsinghal #inidia stories and more


  • Andy

    Nice to see religions other than Christianity and Islam making fools of themselves.

  • Harbo

    In India EVERYTHING breeds diseases. I lived there two years. Believe me.

  • Nitin Karani

    The name of the case is actually ‘Naz Foundation vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others’. And you have given too much credit to a silly man. I am sure he’s enjoying all the attention.


    Hey Nitin. I browsed the Supreme Court website. Now the name of the case(s) seems to be something like… ‘(Anti gay petitioner) vs Naz Foundation and Ors’. We are the defendants now.

    For example, SLP (Civil) 15436/2009 reads


  • Nitin Karani

    @DEVIL INCARNATE: Ok, I thought the post referred to the Delhi HC case, not the Supreme Court one. Thanks.

Comments are closed.