India’s Judicial changes to discriminatory and archaic laws in recent weeks are a stark contrast from centuries of inequality. These include decriminalising adultery and homosexuality, in their courts. Such changes to social acceptance, are further supported by the progressive move to offer 500 million of the poorest people free health care. These rapid modernisations of equality laws and healthcare may tie in with India’s ever-growing economy and stance on the world stage. It also reflects the importance of inclusive social policy, equality and health care in relation to the UK’s potential departure from the European Union, and what effect this will have on our human rights and NHS.

 

Recently, India’s top court overruled the 158-year-old colonial law on adultery; which allowed women to be treated like property by men. The law on adultery allowed men to be prosecuted for having sex with a married woman, without her husband’s permission. This is an archaic piece of law, which had to be overruled for India to progress socially, and thus economically. Whilst it seems shocking to still have such a law actively imposed until recent times, it can be compared to the English case of R v R [1991] UKHL 12. In R v R the House of Lords overruled outdated common law on rape within marriage. Up until this ruling, a man could legally rape his wife, which is outrageous and disgusting. The law Lords noted that this no longer reflected where women stood in society. This was only 27 years ago; within my lifetime, that a man could have non-consensual sex with his wife and the law did not protect her.

In the United Kingdom it was 1918 when women over 30 who owned property could vote. Later, under the Equal Franchise Act 1928 women over 21 were able to vote and had the same rights as voting men. Some twenty years later, in 1948 men and women were given the right to vote in India. This is a similar time frame to the UK’s modernisations of some equality laws, in relation to India’s recent change to adultery.  Shockingly, adultery remains illegal in 21 States of America, whilst 60 countries have removed such laws. Including South Korea’s highest court, who determined such a law “violated self-determination and privacy” (BBC). It is not necessary for the state to intervene in the consenting sexual contact between two adults; just as equally as the state must intervene where there is no consent.

At the beginning of September this year, India’s highest court ruled homosexuality is no longer illegal. Justice Indu Malhora said “History owes an apology to the members of this community and their families…for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered throughout the centuries. The members of this community were forced to live a life in fear of reprisals and persecution”. This is a great move in the direction of freedom, diversity and equality. Section 377 of the Penal Code incited violence towards transgender and gay communities by both civilians and the police. A 2003 report gave gruesome, horrific stories, including a hijra (SE Asia’s traditional transgender community member) sex worker who was first gang-raped by a group of men, and then gang-raped by the police. The overruling of this law is the first step to accepting people for who they are without prejudice or malice. The law must reflect what society wants to achieve. Often, the decisions of senior courts, whilst they should not, also reflect the culture of the government.

 

In the “Summer 2018 Gender Equality: A Key Differentiator for Sustainable Growth” the UN Summit in New Delhi, the Prime Minister expressed “a deep commitment” to gender equality (UN website). India’s separation of powers is the same as England’s; the executive governs, the legislature makes law and the judiciary deals with breaches of the law. India also has a common law system; where judicial decisions create precedent, which becomes common law, imposed on society. The overruling of penal code 377 by a court is possibly a breach of the separation of powers, but a necessary one. It is an example, of why judicial decisions are so necessary to speed-up changes in the law, which are no longer accepted by society or are out-dated. The Prime Minister’s words of equality create a hospitable environment for judicial decisions.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is rolling out a universal health care system called “Modicare” to 500 million people. There are concerns that it has been rushed; with the budget having been set in February 2018, a civil servant said the time frame was “impossible” (The Independent). The other concern is that only a tiny portion of society will know of its existence. However, it is a positive step in the right direction; offering universal healthcare to citizens is a fundamental requirement for a developed country. If PM Modi intends to establish India as a humanitarian society, access to healthcare is essential.

 

India’s recent changes show positive progress; in a relatively short space of time. Coupled with their economic development, social changes for autonomy are the beginning of advancing human rights. These rights are protected throughout the EU, and other developed countries. The judicial decisions and Modicare are a stark contrast, to both the previous equality and social policies; and the current tone used throughout parts of the developed world; such as Trump’s America and Britain’s Brexit. It is also a reminder, having read some horrific accounts of how transgender and gay people were treated, how privileged one is to live in Europe, and how essential it is safeguard anti-discrimination, human rights and equality laws, as well as our NHS in the coming years. Economic development and social policy go hand-in-hand in relation to progress, and should we leave the European Union, these rights must be protected in order to maintain both a healthy society and a strong stance on the world stage.