What is the CPI(M)’s opinion on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that makes homosexual relations a criminal offence? Do you support the demand for review of this clause in the Supreme Court? S Madhav, Mysuru THE CPI(M) was the first national political party to call for the decriminalisation of homosexual activity between consenting adults. Section 377 is an archaic law which was made in the 19th century in colonial times; it treats same-sex relations as an “unnatural offence”. There are a large number of people who have alternative sexual preferences and they cannot be persecuted or discriminated against. Globally, the trend is towards recognising the rights of guys, lesbians and transgenders. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had in a judgement declared Sec. 377 unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution which states that every citizen has equal opportunity to live and is equal before the law. The two-member bench headed by A P Shah stated that Sec. 377 should apply to only non-consensual acts and intercourse with minors. This landmark judgment was supported by the CPI(M). However, appeals against this judgment were heard by the Supreme Court and in 2013, a two-member bench struck down the High Court order stating that Sec. 377 was not unconstitutional. The judgment also said that it was for the parliament to discuss and decide the matter. This was a retrograde step which recriminalised same-sex relations between consenting adults. Recently, on February 2, the Supreme Court heard curative petitions against this judgment and referred them to a five-member constitution bench. This singular step has raised hopes that the Court will review its earlier stand and take positive action on decriminalising same-sex relations. The CPI(M) considers decriminalisation as the first step in ensuring equal rights for those who have alternative sexual preferences. Let us know our Party's views on the victory of the grama panchayat by Twenty20 in Kerala, an organiSation by a private sector company? Balu, Coimbatore A private company, Kitex Group, set-up an NGO called Twenty20 which put up candidates in the Kizhakkambalam grama panchayat in Ernakulam district in Kerala. The Twenty20 put up candidates for all the 19 wards in the panchayat and won 17. Through the Twenty20, the company had spent a large amount of money in various projects and providing facilities in the village in order to garner support. This is the first instance of a company floating an NGO to contest in a local body election. This raises a number of questions regarding the intervention of the corporate sector in the electoral process. It is easy for a big company to concentrate money and resources in a village or a group of panchayats in order to win support during elections. It is reported that the Kizhakkambalam group wanted to set-up some industrial units in the panchayat which was not given permission by the earlier gram panchayat on grounds of pollution. The Kizhakkambalam example shows the ominous potential of companies taking control of gram panchayats through NGOs or platforms floated by them. Getting consent of gram sabhas is necessary by law for setting up projects in forest and scheduled tribe areas. Taking over gram sabhas would become a way to circumvent the question of consent. There are also other serious issues about whether corporates can be allowed to contest elections through NGOs or proxies. It is necessary to examine this issue in depth and bring in suitable provisions in the panchayat legislations to prevent corporate takeover of the local bodies.