Perhaps the most stirring part of Justice Misra’s statement was the assertion that “majoritarian views and popular morality cannot dictate constitutional rights”. Big firms, for instance, have been reluctant to establish benefits for their employees’ same-sex partners, citing uncertainty before the law. Even so, their victory should pay dividends. Indeed, some plaintiffs are asking whether they should have sued for more this time round. More battles loom over questions about civil unions and gay marriage. But the ruling lifts the threat of legal persecution, which could be used for extortion.
One judge, Indu Malhotra, said that being gay should be understood as a “variation”, not an “aberration”, of human nature. At issue was the meaning of “the order of nature”. The chief justice, Dipak Misra, called the ban on gay sex “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”.
