Comments From Individuals, In Petitions And Form Letters, And: Fill & Download for Free

The Indian constitution recognizes official languages. Articles 343 through 351 address the use of Hindi, English, and regional languages for official purposes, with the aim of a nationwide use of Hindi while guaranteeing the use of minority languages at the state and local levels. Hindi has been designated India's official language, although many impediments to its official use exist.The constitution's Eighth Schedule, as amended by Parliament in 1992, listed 18 official or Scheduled Languages: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu.UNESCO has recognized India as one of the most linguistically diverse countries, having 22 scheduled languages, hundreds of local languages and dialects.The Official Languages Act of 1963, pursuing this mandate, said that Hindi would become the sole official national language in 1965. English, however, would continue as an "associate additional official language."Before independence in 1947, the Congress was committed to redrawing state boundaries to correspond with linguistics. The States Reorganisation Commission, which was formed in 1953 to study the problems involved in redrawing state boundaries, viewed language as an important, although by no means the sole, factor. Other factors, such as economic viability and geographic realities, had to be taken into account.The commission issued its report in 1955; the government's request for comments from the populace generated a flood of petitions and letters. The final bill, passed in 1956 and amended several times in the 1960s, by no means resolved even the individual states' linguistic problems.

This is me:Now that you have seen my score, I want to say why I find this test deeply misleading. My main objections to the test are twofold.First, there is not nearly enough context for many of the scenarios to make an educated judgement. Let me give you one example:While on a live on-air tv show, a man kills a baby rabbit with a knife.Now I am supposed to say whether I think that is morally okay or not. Speaking just for myself, I can imagine many situations in which I think that this could go different ways.Let’s say that the show is a public service broadcast in a region of the world that has been historically agricultural but has recently been devastated by famine. The show is being publicly broadcast at community centers and aims to instruct local residents how to catch and butcher local game for food so that they can feed their families. In this case, not only would I judge the action to be “okay,” but I would esteem it a laudable public service.On the other hand, if this is a children’s TV show and little Cindy brought in her pet rabbit only to have a disgruntled former network employee hack it to death with a butcher knife, I would rate it as deeply morally repugnant.Another example:Sarah's dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head.Is Sarah living in an impoverished region of Central Asia? Because if she is living anywhere in the Western World then “can only find a home for two of them” is just a politically correct way of saying that she didn’t give enough of a shit to call one of the numerous services that would take the unwanted animals off of her hands without any unnecessary cruelty or violence. So if Sarah lives in the California Valley, then she is just too lazy to provide the pets entrusted to her with a chance at life. That’s immoral, by my standard.But if Sarah is a Syrian refugee tearfully mercy-killing the puppies she can’t care for to save them from a slower and more grueling death by starvation, then I am more inclined to applaud her courage.Another example that I don’t even think requires much explanation:Bob and Pam are siblings. Bob is given $10 by their father and is told to distribute it between them as he likes. Bob gives $1 to Pam and pockets the $9 himself.How old is Bob? How old is Pam? What are their circumstances? Why did the father leave the matter up to Bob’s judgement?There is simply not enough information provided for me to make a moral judgement call. I left such questions in the middle, refusing to pick one side or the other.But that isn’t even the biggest nor the most insidious problem.The test also conflates morality with politics in a way that I find disingenuous and irresponsible. As a self-identified libertarian, I find the “Liberty” column particularly absurd. I was under the impression that Libertarianism (I honestly never know whether or not to capitalize it, so it is somewhat random in this answer) had more to do with governmental reach and authority than with morality. The idea that true libertarianism requires one’s morals to be as loose as their opposition to authoritarian overreach is anathema to me.To put it simply: there are a whole lot of things that I see as immoral that I nonetheless believe should be legal.But the test didn’t ask if I thought the various actions should be allowed or prohibited under the law, they asked if I thought they were moral, and conflating the two only results in confusion.Let me share some examples.A group of parents, concerned about their children's risk of obesity, demand that the local store stops selling XL sized candy bars and soft drinks.As a firm defender of free speech, I believe that these parents are exercising their inalienable right to dissent, and to demand a redress of perceived grievances. I see no immorality there. Now, if the owner of the store decides that (s)he will continue to sell large drinks and candy, then I don’t think that makes the owner necessarily immoral either. The world is complex, and it doesn’t always break down into good guys and bad guys. It is very possible for two morally-upright people to disagree, and I feel that the test misses that almost entirelyOther parts of the test display the legal/moral dichotomy more completely.A Christian bakery refuses to custom decorate a cake with chocolate letters that would carry a pro-gay message.This is a point on which I break with many of my fellow Liberals. I happen to believe that a private business ought to be allowed to decide the terms of their service for themselves. One of the implications of that belief is that I think any private business ought to be given the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. So I actually support the legal right of any privately owned and orperated business to refuse service even on hateful and bigoted grounds.At the same time, I think that refusal of service to homosexuals on the basis of one’s own infantile and idiotic bigotry is morally repulsive, and I also enthusiastically support the right of the community to express their disgust and to boycott said idiots out of business.There are numerous others that fit the same mold:When a homeless man asks Matt for spare change, Matt keeps on walking and says, “Don't talk to me, loser.”Should it be legal? Absolutely. Is insulting random strangers morally upright? Nope.When Kelly asks Steven out on a date, he sneers and says: “Like I'm gonna date a woman who looks like my overweight bulldog.”Legal? Yes. Moral? No.When Lily tells her classmate Sue that it's her dream to be prom queen, Sue laughs out loud and says: “You're too ugly for that.”See above.Others parts of the test I saw as outright creation of false dichotomies. This was particularly problematic for me:In sex education class, the students are taught that since the sexes are equal, the girls should sleep with as many guys as they want without fear of being considered "sluts."Now there is one word that throws the whole matter for a loop: “should.” I am firmly of the belief that women have—throughout almost the whole of history—been made to deal with a drastically unfair double standard. Not only is sexual promiscuity seen as acceptable in men, it is a badge of honor. Think of the terms for a sexually prolific man: pimp, player, stud, mac, and the particularly pseudoscientific “alpha.” All generally positive in scope.Now think of the terms for sexually prolific women: slut, whore, ho, skank, hussie. All the sort of things that are yelled as insults on schoolyards (and also, occasionally, in corporate offices).I hate this double-standard, dear reader. I despise the way that women who display the courage and strength of character to explore their desires are maligned and ridiculed for that same strength. I find the whole affair idiotic and infantile on a societal level.But at the same time, as a teacher, I have a major problem with the idea that schools ought to tell girls that they should be hooking up as much as possible. That is just about equally as problematic as the proposed alternative, to my eye at least.As someone who actually teaches young people, I am strongly of the opinion that children of both genders ought to be empowered by their teachers to choose for themselves who they want to be, and that any attempt by the institution to impose a predefined identity upon them is a mistake. Indeed, I feel that the attempt to say that women or girls bear some innate responsibility, for historical reasons, to engage in sexual promiscuity—whether or not they choose it for themselves—to be just as dehumanizing as the double-standard that it protests.So I had no idea what to say for such questions.Just to further examine the point, I took the test again, but instead of saying whether or not I felt it was moral to do each of the actions in question, this time I responded based on whether or not I felt that, in most conceivable circumstances, people ought to be allowed engage in each of the designated actions without legal consequence.And once again, I was shocked by my score:Apparently—even on pure legal terms—I am even less libertarian than the fucking Liberals. In fact, I am just about nothing. I am now morally blank.I get the feeling that there are a few specific answers that led to this result, and I want to look at each one in turn. Given that I am now talking about what I believe should be legal rather than what I think is morally upright, I continued to endorse the people’s right to dissent.As mentioned above, I fully agreed with the legality of parents to to exercise their First Amendment right to protest a store’s policy. As both a supporter and a skeptic of the American legal system, I said—in response to another prompt—that I thought it should be legal for women to sue an all-men’s club for equal admission, because I believe in the right of every American to sue for anything at all, just as I support the right of businesses to refuse service. I don’t have to support the reasons behind legal action to think said action should remain legal.There is also a question about a military commander intentionally failing to report civilian deaths because he knows that the army didn’t mean to kill those civilians. If you asked me for a definition of Authoritarianism, that would hit pretty close to the mark. Nonetheless, I think that might have lost Libertarian points by saying that he should have to report everyone that his military unit kills.So let’s see what happens to that same score when I change a few limited factors:I say that citizens ought not to be allowed their right to dissent, and to petition their local institutions on behalf of their community for the redress of grievances.I argue that people ought not to be given their right to make full use of the American judicial system, even for absurd or nonsensical purposes.I say that agents of state violence and authority ought not to be held accountable for their actions.I realize that these are imperfect criteria, but those are the only questions to which my answers are changing on this run-through.Holy shit! I went up in multiple categories!This is honestly really fascinating now.So it seems that, by denying the citizens their right to dissent and to petition the government for the redress of grievances, I became way more Libertarian, though still apparently not fully Libertarian. At this point, we have dudes fucking facsimiles of their nieces, brothers and sisters fucking each other; we have animals being killed left and right; we have rich families buying all of the toys so that none of the other kids can have them. But I am still, somehow, not as “libertarian” as “real” Libertarians.It seems that—according to this test—the belief in any kind of code of honor or morality automatically disqualifies a person from being properly Libertarian.But what strikes me even more is that my “Loyalty” index jumped from 0% to 17%, and that there is only one answer to which I can attribute that shift. Apparently the belief that a military commander ought not to be permitted to cover up the civilian casualties caused by his (or, I guess, her) command means that I am lacking in “loyalty.” Apparently, “loyalty” includes a willingness to overlook the crimes of those bearing the mantle of authority, and my denial of said right makes me both less loyal and, bafflingly, less of a Libertarian.This is the depth to which our society has sunk. Especially the fact that denying citizens their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is seen as a “Libertarian” trait, and that the defense of Authoritarian power is seen as a a fundamental mark of the “real” Libertarians…This is why I pay no attention to those Quorans who use Libertarianism like a MMORPG guild/clan/whatever; and why I instead look to the actual values that each of them espouse as individuals, and form my own opinions thereupon.Thank you for asking, Matt Laine. This turned into a better and more comprehensive answer than I initially intended or envisioned.Thank you for reading, and I welcome everyone—dissenters included—to weigh in below in the comments.

I skimmed through the 495 page judgment of the Supreme Court. Some key insights (in summary form) are presented in this answer.The statements in quotes in this answer are copied from the judgment. Everything else is my comments/summary.#1] IntroductionThe court begins by laying the emphasis on a person’s individuality, and says that a person cannot escape their own individuality and says that ‘one defines oneself’ and that this entire decision intends to explore the meaning of it.The overarching ideals of individual autonomy and liberty, equality for all sans discrimination of any kind, recognition of identity with dignity and privacy of human beings constitute the cardinal four corners of our monumental ConstitutionFurther, the court noted that the time has come to bid adieu to perceptions, prejudices, and stereotypes deeply ingrained in the societal mindset and empower everyone.More importantly, the court noted that an individual’s identity is given by nature, and not accepting it would be an assault on a person’s dignity and infringe his fundamental rights.The court deliberated on gender identity, as below:Gender identity refers to each person‘s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth#2] Submissions in favour of LGBTQ+ communityHomosexuality, bisexuality and other sexual orientations are natural. The court agreed that the American Psychological Association has opined that sexual orientation is a natural condition and attraction towards the same sex or opposite sex are both naturally equal, the only difference being that the same sex attraction arises in far lesser numbers.The petitioners pleaded that a person’s sexuality affects not only their sense of individualism, but also affects their family, social and professional life in multiple ways.That, such people need to live without fear in the hope that the court shall protect them from an oppressive majority, that can affect them in various ways - including employment, medical treatments, insurance, live-in etc.The law should have treated them as natural victims and sensitized the society towards their plight and laid stress on such victimisation, however, the reverse is being done due to which a sense of estrangement and alienation has developed and continues to prevail amongst the members belonging to the LGBT groupSection 377 was a violation of the Constitution:Article 21: right to life and liberty - because a person’s gender identity and sexuality is a part of his individuality and must be protected just as his life and liberty.Article 15: which states that the law must treat all citizens as equal, regardless of their sex. The court observed that section 377 violated this article.Article 19: which talks about an individual’s freedom of speech. The court observed that a person’s sexuality is one of the ways that they express themselves, and restricting it is a violation of this basic tenet of the Constitution.Section 377 was also vague, because ‘unnatural’ sex is not defined anywhere either in that section itself or elsewhere in the law. Such a broad provision leaves too much to interpret.The previous decision was also erroneous in that it assumed that only a very minuscule proportion of the population was affected by it, when in reality almost 7–8% of the population is affected.#3] Submissions opposing the said petitionThe Union of India simply stated that they leave the matter to the court’s wisdom, but that this decision should not be extended to any other sections without first giving them a right to be heard. However, other people intervening the court had a few things to say, in support of Section 377, which are discussed below:Firstly, they contended that acts mentioned in Section 377 are done by abusing a person’s body organs, which is undignified and derogatory, and cannot be sanctioned by the court.That, enough liberty was granted to transgenders by way of previous various judgments and no further liberty is necessary, and that they are only doing it to abuse public morality.It was also submitted that sometimes we have to make some things punishable in order to stop it from happening, especially if the society considers that it is wrong.They contended that homosexuals are more likely to be affected by HIV/AIDS and therefore Section 377 is important to prevent people from being affected by such diseases.Some other contentions in favour of Section 377 were made by the intervening NGOs:Removing it would place the family system in shambles and our society may become corrupted. Many homosexual activities would start for money, and it would tempt and corrupt the youth of the country.That, just because other countries have de-criminalised it does not mean we should do it too. Our country is different.That removing it would hurt various religious groups, and is thus against Article 25 (right to religion)Homosexuality is against the order of nature. It is the duty of the court to protect the society from such individuals who attempt to affect others by their unnatural conduct.#4] Court’s deliberation about the ethos of our ConstitutionThe court reiterated the principles of a previous judgment wherein it was held that the Constitution is organic in nature. Like a living organ, it must change with the passage of time.Common sense has always served in the court's ceaseless striving as a voice of reason to maintain the blend of change and continuity of order which are sine qua non for stability in the process of change in a parliamentary democracyFurther, the court noted that treating the Constitution as a ‘living document’ also finds merit in various other countries that have also upheld this principle in order to evolve with time:Supreme Court of Canada: stated that the Constitution is like a living tree that must accommodate the modern realities by way of progressive interpretation, rather than regressive.Supreme Court of USA: creators of the Constitution could not have thought about everything, and they only hoped to create an organism that was capable of change.The concept of transformative constitutionalism has at its kernel a pledge, promise and thirst to transform the Indian society so as to embrace therein, in letter and spirit, the ideals of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as set out in the Preamble to our Constitution.#4] Constitutional morality and LGBT not being a ‘choice’.The concept of Constitutional morality cannot have been fixed by the founders of the nation who were only emerging from centuries of colonial era. It is the duty of today’s State organs to keep it flowing, based on the principles laid down earlier.Supreme Court further held that the Constitutional morality must prevail over social morality, regardless of how popular it might be.In the garb of social morality, the members of the LGBT community must not be outlawed or given a step-motherly treatment of malefactor by the society. If this happens or if such a treatment to the LGBT community is allowed to persist, then the constitutional courts, which are under the obligation to protect the fundamental rights, would be failing in the discharge of their dutyThe court then deliberated upon the meanings of various sexual orientations and gender identities. It held that various experts have opined that this is not a person’s choice, and is totally natural.The society cannot remain unmindful to the theory which several researches, conducted both in the field of biological and psychological science, have proven and reaffirmed time and again. To compel a person having a certain sexual orientation to proselytize to another is like asking a body part to perform a function it was never designed to perform in the first place.Whether one's sexual orientation is determined by genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and/or cultural influences (or a combination thereof), most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientationThe court reiterated this with further scientific backing.Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.Wonderful!The court then talked about why dignity is enshrined as a fundamental right of all citizens, and treating LGBT community with dignity is of utmost importance.It is not only the duty of the State and the Judiciary to protect this basic right to dignity, but the collective at large also owes a responsibility to respect one another's dignity, for showing respect for the dignity of another is a constitutional duty. It is an expression of the component of constitutional fraternity#5] Right to privacyRight to privacy is not only a fundamental right, it is also a human rights issue. The court noted Article 12 of International Declaration of Human Rights, which states that ‘no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.’We all have a right to a sphere of private intimacy and autonomy which allows us to establish and nurture human relationships without interference from the outside community. The way in which we give expression to our sexuality is at the core of this area of private intimacy.The court observed that it’s important to recognise some rights as fundamental rights so that we can avoid it being unfairly influenced by the majoritarian view.Following this, the court saw the practices in various other countries around the world for a perspective, including reading various cases in USA, Canada, South Africa, United Kingdom, Philippines etc.#6] Whether homosexuality is ‘unnatural’?The court observed that Section 377 only criminalises ‘unnatural’ behaviour, and question arises if LGBT community really falls under the definition of ‘unnatural’?Interestingly, the court said that, with the evolution of time, even sex these days is not only about making babies.With the passage of time and evolution of the society, procreation is not the only reason for which people choose to come together, have live-in relationships, perform coitus or even marry. They do so for a whole lot of reasons including emotional companionshipIn the contemporary world where even marriage is now not equated to procreation of children, the question that would arise is whether homosexuality and carnal intercourse between consenting adults of opposite sex can be tagged as “against the order of nature”. It is the freedom of choice of two consenting adults to perform sex for procreation or otherwise and if their choice is that of the latter, it cannot be said to be against the order of nature.Section 377 can in fact be used to harass LGBT community, and must not be sustained. Also, ‘unnatural’ is not at all defined, so should we also cover heterosexual couples if they are not having a vaginal intercourse? The court said that there seems to be no purpose of keeping this section.#7] Conclusions of the courtSexual orientation and gender identity is a part of a person’s identity. It is inseparable and cannot be treated differently.Saying that LGBT community is a minority is no excuse to continue keeping this provision in the law.Our Constitution is a living document and must change with time, especially when it comes to protecting the minorities.Dynamic Constitution also helps to bring change in the society and ‘guide the nation towards a resplendent future’.Social morality is different from Constitutional morality and we cannot allow social morality to dictate laws.Right to live with dignity is a fundamental right and a human right. Section 377 was against such a basic principle.Sexual orientation is a natural phenomenon, inherent in an individual which is determined by neurological and biological factors.Right to privacy is a fundamental right, and Section 377 was infringing upon a fundamental right.Even if there is a scope for interpretation, the court must adopt the principle of progressive realisation of rights.A person has autonomy over their intimacy and sexuality, and they can do whatever they please to do with it. It’s their choice.That consent is the determining factor. Even in Section 375, consent is what distinguishes between rape and sexual intercourse. Consent is not enshrined in Section 377, which makes it wrong.Neither IPC nor any other law have defined what is ‘unnatural’, hence including LGBT community here is entirely arbitrary.Section 377 is a violation of right to privacy and dignity.The intent behind punishing such acts (in case of consenting adults) is not clear because nobody is harmed in such case.Being entirely arbitrary, Section 377 does not even distinguish between consenting and non-consenting adults. This cannot be sustained.Public decency or morality cannot be applied here, because any such acts done in private do not concern the public at all.If Section 377 is applied, it would mean that any ‘unnatural’ sexual inter-course even between a man and a woman can be punished.The previous decision of the Court is overruled.As an aside, it is extremely important to note the conclusions of the court. Because not only has the Supreme Court invalidated Section 377, it has also laid down a number of other conclusions for the society to follow and emulate.After this, judgments of the five judges were discussed in detail. All of them, unanimously, said that Section 377 is liable to be struck down. Observations from the individual judgments are being shared below. I am not including the portions that are already covered above (there is repetition in each judge’s decision, so we shall ignore that portion).Judgment of Justice NarimanHe started with a history of Section 377 (right from 1533), and noted how initially any action intended to gratify ‘unnatural lust’ was covered and how the law changed with times, and how various questions were addressed with time:There is no evidence that this needs any psychiatric treatment, and no evidence that any such illness can be caused in the society due to non conformist sexuality.It cannot be said that men having sex with other men will then turn their attention to children. There is no merit to that assertion and no evidence to support it.The judge further noted that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and it has been established after looking at sufficient evidence from experts in this field.Regarding religious issues, the judge said this:Morality and criminality are not co-extensive - sin is not punishable on earth by Courts set up by the State but elsewhere; crime alone is punishable on earth. To confuse the one with the other is what causes the death knell of Section 377, insofar as it applies to consenting homosexual adults.If you think homosexuality is a sin, take it up with your God, not with the Court. Ha, well said, judge!Judgment of Justice ChandrachudSpeaking quite harshly about Section 377, the judge said that we should have done this long time back.It is difficult to right the wrongs of history. But we can certainly set the course for the future. That we can do by saying, as I propose to say in this case, that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders have a constitutional right to equal citizenship in all its manifestations. Sexual orientation is recognised and protected by the Constitution. Section 377 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional.The Union government said that they leave the matter to ‘wisdom of the court’. But, the Judge said, we would have appreciated that they too, categorically agreed with the petitioners.Even the society is to blame for this, by promoting gender stereotypes about what men or women should do. This has to go away, as the Judge remarked.If individuals as well as society hold strong beliefs about gender roles – that men (to be characteristically reductive) are unemotional, socially dominant, breadwinners that are attracted to women and women are emotional, socially submissive, caretakers that are attracted to men – it is unlikely that such persons or society at large will accept that the idea that two men or two women could maintain a relationship.Quite an important observation, considering our society today!The Judge also dismissed claims that sexual orientation is a mental health issue, or that we should continue to control it so as to prevent HIV/AIDS. He said that there is no merit in such assertion.Judgment of Justice MalhotraSexual orientation is an innate attribute of one’s identity, and cannot be altered. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. It manifests in early adolescence. Homosexuality is a natural variant of human sexuality.She noted that homosexuality is not an aberration, but only a variation in nature, as far as sexuality is concerned.The Judge noted that in earlier times, it was a common perception that homosexuality was an illness which resulted due to an arrested development of the child. There is no truth in the statement.History owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries. The members of this community were compelled to live a life full of fear of reprisal and persecution. This was on account of the ignorance of the majority to recognise that homosexuality is a completely natural condition, part of a range of human sexuality.So, did the Supreme Court take the right decision?Well, they considered almost all the aspects that you could have imagined. If you are against this judgment, you must have your reasons, but believe me when I say this: your reasons have already been considered. The court exercised a lot of wisdom in considering all the aspects behind taking this decision. You only need to take the trouble to read.The court’s order is commendable.I intend to go through it in much greater detail later. But I must say, I am proud of our Supreme Court for coming up with such an exceptional deliberation behind this order. It’s beautiful!