Proposed Penal Code amendmentand threat of promotion of sexual abuse of children – IV

by Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director
Lawyers for Human Rights and Development

(The third part of this article appeared in The Island of 13 June 2023)

Joining the discussion, Freedom People’s Congress MP Prof. Charitha Herath has said that they would support decriminalization of same-sex relations, if and when the Bill is presented to Parliament.

‘‘We must engage with two domains to achieve the desired results. One is the political domain and the other is the cultural domain. We can change old fashioned political and cultural establishments through constant engagement. ‘’

‘’The technical approach alone will not usher in a meaningful change. That is why I highlight the importance of cultural discussions, as well, to overcome the existing barriers. Sometimes, I feel that these cultural platforms are forgotten by the younger generation,’’ Prof. Herath explained.

Minister Jeevan Thondaman countered the argument that culture was a barrier in achieving non-discrimination for the LGBTQ community in SL. He said ‘’ There is more than enough evidence from ancient history that same sex relations existed and they were very much embraced many, many centuries ago.’’ Thondaman pledged support to legislative reforms decriminalizing same-sex relations.

(E) Existing Penal Code provisions compared with Proposed Amendments

S. 365 of the original Penal Code: ‘’ Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.’’

In the Penal Code there is no definition as to what is meant by carnal intercourse against the order of nature. According to Indian cases, acts of anal sex and oral sex were considered as carnal intercourse against the order of nature. The Police had no idea as to what is meant by it. Only where there was a complaint of a person having anal or vaginal sex with an animal, like a cow, goat or a bitch, they acted on it. This happened very, very seldom and this provision remained almost unenforced.

However, with the promotion of tourism in the 1980s, many incidents of foreign tourists having anal sex with male children were reported. The Police used to produce the suspects in courts for committing an offence not under this Section but under S. 365A of the Penal Code, carrying a much less penalty.

By 1995 Amendments, S. 365 was amended by adding a clause making it explicitly applicable to punish sexual abusers of children.

1995 Amendment of S. 365 of the Penal Code –

‘’ Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be punished with fine and where the offence is committed by a person over 18 years of age in respect of a person under 16 years of age, the offender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and not exceeding 20 years and with fine and shall also be ordered to pay compensation of an amount determined by court to the person in respect of whom the offence was committed for injuries caused to such person.’’

The new Bill proposes to repeal S. 365 and substitute it with the following section:

‘’Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with an animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to fine.’’

Under the proposed Bill, anal or oral sex with any man, woman or child will no longer be considered as carnal intercourse against the order of nature; it will be considered as normal human sexual behaviour, not an offence punishable under the law.

This new Bill proposes to totally repeal S. 365A of the Penal Code, without any substitution.

S. 365A of the original Penal Code:

‘’Any male person who, in public or private, commits or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to precure the commission by any male person, of any act of gross indecency with another male person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to two years or with fine or both, and shall also be liable to be punished with whipping.’’

This provision covered offences committed by male persons only. 1995 Amendment made it applicable to cover offences committed by both male and female persons and made provision for imposing deterrent penalties for offences committed on children.

1995 Amendment of S. 365A of the Penal Code –

‘’Any person who, in public or private, commits or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to precure the commission by any person, of an act of gross indecency with another person is guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to two years or with fine or both and where the offence is committed by a person over 18 years of age in respect of any person under 16 years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and not exceeding 10 years and with fine and shall also be ordered to pay compensation of an amount determined by court to the person in respect of whom the offence was committed for injuries caused to such person.’’

The Supreme Court Determination on the Bill…

Three persons had filed an application – SC SD No. 13 / 2023 – in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this Bill. Fourteen petitions have been filed by persons seeking Court’s permission to intervene in the Application and the Court has allowed their applications. Out of the 14 intervenient applications, intervenient petitioners only in two applications have supported the petitioners opposing the Bill. Intervenient petitioners in 12 intervenient applications have supported the Bill, opposing the petitioners.

Among the Intervenient petitioners who supported the Bill, there were representatives of four foreign-funded NGOs that have played a leading role in the anti-Sri Lanka campaign carried on in the UN HRC in Geneva making wild allegations against the Govt.

of Sri Lanka since 2006; representatives of 3 or 4 LGBTQ groups; a former Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo; a leading NGO figure who has served as the President and two other women who have served as members of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka; a women who has served as the President of the National Child Protection Authority; the person who moderated the discussion at the Canadian High Commission and a major activist in the LGBTQ movement in Sri Lanka.

Having examined and analysed the arguments and submissions of the Counsels for the petitioners, intervenient petitioners, respondents and the Attorney General, the Court has made its determination in a lengthy a Judgement. As mentioned in the Judgement:

This Bill proposes to repeal S. 365A in its entirety. ‘‘It must be reiterated that 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.’’ – P. 10

‘‘The Counsels who appeared for the petitioners opposing the Bill have presented four arguments in support of their position that the provisions of the Bill are violative of Articles 1,3, 4d, 9, 12(1), 13(4), 27(1), 27(2)(d) and 27(13) of the Constitution…It must, perhaps, be stated at the outset that in our view, ex facie, none of the four arguments impinge upon the provisions of Articles 1, 3, 4d, 12(1) and 13(4) of the Constitution….

‘‘The first argument was that the safeguards provided in Ss. 365 and 365A for the protection of children and those under 16 years of age will be taken away by the amendments proposed by the Bill, thereby creating space for exploitation of children and leaving a lacuna in the enforcement of the law relating to offences against children.

‘‘In this connection it was further submitted that:

exposure to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) programmes in schools could impact upon the free decision-making power of children and give rise to transgender children;

the enactment of the Bill would be contrary to the provisions in Article 27(13) which provides that ‘The state shall promote with special care the interests of children and youth, so as to ensure their full development, physical, mental, moral, religious and social, and protect them from exploitation and discrimination.’;

the protection presently afforded to children would be removed, if Ss. 365 and 365A are amended as proposed by the Bill, and that even a person under 16 years of age could engage in sexual activity with a person over 18 years of age.

‘‘ It is in this background that this Court was urged as the upper guardian of children to act in the best interests of the child and declare that the Bill is violative of Article 12(1).

The Stand taken by the State…

‘‘The learned Additional Solicitor General Haripriya Jayasundara, PC, submitted that women and children were the focus of the amendments introduced to the PC in 1995, and that while Ss. 365 and 365A were amended by increasing the punishment where one party was a person below the age of sixteen, S. 365B introduced a new offence titled ‘grave sexual abuse.’ It was further submitted by the Additional Solicitor General that the amendment introduced to S, 365B by the Penal Code Amendment Act No. 29 of 1998 specifically provides that consent with regard to any sexual conduct constituting grave sexual abuse is immaterial where the offence is committed in respect of a child below the age of 16. – vide S. 365B(1)(aa). It was her position that in the event the conduct of any person does not fall within the definition contained in S. 365B, S. 345 of the PC which deals with sexual harassment could be resorted to in order to protect children against any unwelcome sexual advances by words or action. Thus, the contention of the petitioners is unfounded and without any legal basis.’’

It appears that the Court has come to this conclusion on the basis of the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. However, her submission is far from correct. It does not appear from the Judgement as to whether the Counsels of the petitioners made any attempt to show the fallacy of the submissions made by the learned ASG.

‘‘The second argument of the Counsels of the petitioners was that the impugned amendment will dilute the Rule of the Law and result in the life and liberty of the citizens being at risk. This argument is even more tenuous and the petitioners have not been able to connect passing of this Bill to any violation of the Rule of the Law.

‘‘The third argument was that a majority of those with HIV and Aids have history of male or bisexual exposure and that decriminalization of same-sex relationships will give rise to an increase in the number of persons infected with HIV and Aids. It was further submitted that this would have an adverse impact on national security by destroying individuals, families, communities, economic and socio-political institutions, and the military police forces, and that the protection granted by the Chapter on fundamental rights cannot be truly enjoyed without the provision of a safe, secure and protective environment in which a citizen of Sri Lanka may realize the full potential of his existence.

‘‘However, little to nothing has been submitted to this court in support of this proposition other than a singular point that HIV and Aids affect those engaging in same-sex intercourse more than those engaging in hetero-sexual intercourse. Hence, the material placed before this Court by the petitioners does not support their position that HIV and Aids are only prevalent in homo-sexuals or that the proposed amendment will result in an increase in the number of persons afflicted with HIV and Aids.

‘‘Counsels for some of the intervenient petitioners presented three important arguments. The first was that it is not only homo-sexual males who contract HIV, but female sex workers, returnee migrant workers and those who use or inject drugs. The second is that criminalization of homo-sexual conduct between two consenting adult males has only resulted in such persons being marginalised from society and thereby being deprived to access of proper health care which if available would address the spread of HIV and Aids among those persons. The third is that the amendment of S. 365 and S, 365A would facilitate the outreach to individuals and groups at a heightened risk of infection. The intervenient petitioners and the ASG agree on the point that the perception that HIV is disproportionately higher in homo-sexuals is due to the social stigma caused by the criminalization of their relationships…..The Counsels of petitioners did not adduce any scientifically acceptable evidence in support of this line of thinking.

The fourth and final argument was that ‘‘homo-sexual activity is contrary to the principles of Buddhism and therefore violates Article 9 of the Constitution…. The petitioners did not explain the manner in which the decriminalization of one’s sexual orientation derogates from the State’s duty protect and foster Buddha Sasana nor the point of how the proposed amendments are prohibited by or contrary to Buddha Sasana, except to state that it is an offence (parajika) for a Buddhist priest to have sexual relations with another, irrespective of whether the other person is of the same sex or opposite sex.

‘‘On the contrary, Mr. Sanjeewa Jayawardana, PC and Mr. Prasantha Lal de Alwis, PC, appearing for some of the intervenient petitioners submitted that: (a) Bhikkus and Bhikkunis have a separate code of conduct (Vinaya rules) and lay persons are not governed by the rules in the said code; (b) none of the ‘sutras’ focussed on the conduct of lay persons condemn homo-sexuality; (c) while the basic tenets of all religions are that all human beings should be treated fairly and equally irrespective of their circumstances, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism includes tolerance towards and equal treatment of all human beings and that Buddhism does not discriminate persons whose sexual orientation is anything other than hetero-sexual; (d) from whatever parity of reasoning, it would be outrageous for the petitioners to allege that a law which decriminalises homosexuality would result in the undermining of the Buddha Sasana.

‘’We are of the view that the final argument of the petitioners too lacks merit.

‘‘Most of the arguments put forward by and in support of the petitioners are largely based on speculation and may be disposed of summarily. For instance, the argument that children would be harmed by the passing of this Bill or the argument that there shall be an increase in the number of those afflicted with HIV and Aids is specious.’’ – P. 17 (To be continued)