U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay attends a news conference at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva December 2, 2013. 
 
 GENEVA A decision by the Indian Supreme Court to reinstate a ban on gay sex represents a "significant step backwards for India" and violates international law, United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay said on Thursday, suggesting the case be reheard. 
 
 In a major blow to gay rights in the world's largest democracy, the Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a 2009 ruling by a lower court that had decriminalized gay sex. 
 
 "Criminalizing private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified," Pillay said in a statement issued in Geneva. 
 
 "Yesterday's Supreme Court decision in this case represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights." 
 
 The top court stated that only India's government could change the law, deeming the Delhi High Court had overstepped its powers with the decision four years ago. 
 
 Section 377 of India's penal code bans "sex against the order of nature", which is widely interpreted to mean homosexual sex. The colonial-era rule dates back to the 19th century. 
 
 Pillay, who previously served on the High Court of her native South Africa, said: "The Supreme Court of India has a long and proud history of defending and expanding protection of human rights. This decision is a regrettable departure from that tradition." 
 
 She voiced hope that the Court might exercise its review procedure, in effect agreeing to rehear the case before a larger panel of judges. 
 
 This would provide an opportunity for judges to reconsider whether the Supreme Court's initial decision took sufficient account of all relevant arguments, she said. 
 
 (Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Mark Trevelyan) ||||| First there was surprise, then shock, then anger. By nightfall thousands across India had taken to the streets in spontaneous protests against an unexpected supreme court decision on Wednesday reversing a judgment that had decriminalised gay sex in the country. 
 
 Activists had expected the court simply to rubber-stamp the original 2009 ruling. Now India will rejoin the more than 70 countries – mainly in Africa, the Middle East and south Asia – where homosexual relations are illegal. 
 
 The reinstatement of a 153-year-old law passed under British rule and based on 16th-century English legislation means "carnal intercourse" between consenting adults of the same sex is once more defined as "unnatural" and punishable by up to 10 years in jail. 
 
 Waving multicoloured flags and wearing black bandanas, the crowd of protesters that gathered at the Jantar Mantar, a favourite point for demonstrations in the Indian capital, Delhi, was full of young men and women. 
 
 "I am gay, punish me," read one banner. "My love is not a crime," read another. The crowd cheered slogans of "My body, my rights" shouted by transgender protesters wearing bright traditional clothing. 
 
 For many the predominant emotion was disappointment. The 2009 decision of the high court in Delhi to repeal the law banning gay sex, known as section 377, was seen as a landmark in the campaign for equality in India. 
 
 "I was so disheartened by this judgment. It was supposed to be a first in a series of rights for the LGBT in India: property rights, marriage rights and so on," said Raja Bagga, a 25-year-old lawyer. "It would have been a precursor to a better, dignified life." 
 
 Few expected the legal challenge launched by conservatives – including Muslim and Christian religious associations, a rightwing politician and a retired government official turned astrologist – to succeed. The supreme court is known for its broadly progressive judgments that often order politicians or officials to respect the rights of the poor, disadvantaged or marginalised communities. 
 
 "It's a tremendous blow. It's unprecedented for a court with a long history of expanding rights to reduce dignity, not protect it," said Gautham Bhan, a prominent gay activist. 
 
 Among the supporters of the challenge was Baba Ramdev, a Hindu holy man with a mass following who has fought a long legal battle to maintain the ban on gay sex. 
 
 At a press conference following the judgment, Ramdev invited the gay community to his yoga ashram where he said he would "cure them of homosexuality", which he described as "unnatural, uncivilised, immoral, irreligious and abnormal". He said he would do so by "keeping them in a room with a heterosexual for a few days". 
 
 Tanuja Thakur, a Hindu spiritual leader, told the Guardian: "When two people of same sex indulge in a physical activity, it goes against nature. And anything unnatural is criminal in nature." 
 
 He said homosexuality was "happening because society is not doing enough spiritual practice". 
 
 The fierce debate – at least among metropolitan elites – prompted by Wednesday's judgment demonstrates how sexual relations have become a battleground in India, often revealing cultural splits between generations, between urban and rural dwellers and between those who invoke a "traditional past" contaminated by western influences and those who stress a local history of pluralism and tolerance. 
 
 Few now expect the beleaguered government, led by the Congress party, to risk limited political capital and sparse energy on a fight for gay rights. 
 
 The opposition Bharatiya Janata party, a Hindu nationalist party, has won a series of recent victories in state elections at the expense of the traditionally liberal, secular Congress, and though Indian society is changing very rapidly it remains profoundly conservative. The home minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, said it was "not possible to legislate on anything now". 
 
 Gay rights activists say the community faces significant discrimination and police harassment, even if prosecutions for same-sex activity have been rare. Criminalising homosexuality makes them vulnerable to blackmail, they say. 
 
 Defenders of the supreme court decision said the objections of the judges to the repeal of section 377 were "constitutional and legal, not moral". 
 
 However, critics said that the wording of the judgment – which refers to the "so-called rights of LGBT persons", describes same-sex relations as "against the order of nature" and says that "lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders constitute only a miniscule fraction of the country's population" – reveals deep prejudice. 
 
 Gay activists say there is increasing support for their cause. Only about a dozen people attended India's first gay pride march, in the eastern city of Kolkata in 1999. 
 
 Now thousands gather there each year and similar events are held in Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and other cities. Gay film festivals and university campus groups have also sprung up. "This is not the same community as 10 years ago. This is a real call to arms," said Bhan. 
 
 Vikram Seth, the Indian prize-winning novelist, said he was hopeful. "Today is a great day for prejudice and inhumanity and a bad day for law and love. But law develops and love is resilient and prejudice will be beaten back," he told the NDTV news channel. 
 
 "I wasn't a criminal yesterday but I'm certainly a criminal today … But I do not propose to take the permission of their lordships when deciding who to love and who to make love with." ||||| Image caption There has been outrage in India over the Supreme Court ruling 
 
 The Indian government is considering decriminalising homosexuality, a day after the country's top court upheld a law which criminalised gay sex. 
 
 Law Minister Kapil Sibal said "all options were being considered to restore a 2009 Delhi High Court order" which had decriminalised gay sex. 
 
 Earlier, Finance Minister P Chidambaram said the ruling had taken India "back to 1860". 
 
 There has been outrage over the ruling seen as a huge blow to gay rights. 
 
 Gay rights activists called it "retrograde" and "disappointing" and said they would approach the court to review its decision. 
 
 The United Nations too criticised the decision, calling it a "significant step backwards for India". 
 
 "Criminalising private, consensual same-sex sexual conduct violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified," UN human rights chief Navi Pillay said in a statement issued in Geneva on Thursday. 
 
 The statement added that the ruling was "a blow for human rights". 
 
 According to Section 377, a 153-year-old colonial-era law, a same-sex relationship is an "unnatural offence" and punishable by a 10-year jail term. 
 
 In its 2009 ruling, the Delhi High Court had described Section 377 as discriminatory and said gay sex between consenting adults should not be treated as a crime. 
 
 There has been widespread outrage in India's gay community 
 
 The ruling was widely and visibly welcomed by India's gay community, which said the judgement would help protect them from harassment and persecution. 
 
 Several political, social and religious groups had petitioned the Supreme Court to have the law reinstated in the wake of the 2009 court ruling. 
 
 While reversing the landmark Delhi High Court order, the Supreme Court said it was up to parliament to legislate on the issue. 
 
 'Worrying, retrograde' 
 
 "The government is considering all options to restore the High Court verdict on [Section] 377. We must decriminalise adult consensual relationships," Mr Sibal wrote on Twitter. 
 
 Earlier, Mr Chidambaram told the NDTV news channel that he was "extremely disappointed" with the court ruling. 
 
 Image caption Many religious and political groups had opposed decriminalisation of gay sex 
 
 "We have gone back to 1860. The government will look at all options. The legislative option takes time but I am not ruling it out," Mr Chidambaram said. 
 
 "The reasoning of the judgement is worrying. Our knowledge of physiology and psychology was poor in 1860, now to say same sex intercourse is against order of nature is retrograde," he added. 
 
 The president of the ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi also criticised the Supreme Court ruling. 
 
 She said she was disappointed over the order and hoped that the parliament would address it, reported Press Trust of India. 
 
 "Delhi High Court had wisely removed an archaic, unjust law," she added. 
 
 Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling was welcomed by religious groups, particularly leaders of India's Muslim and Christian communities, who had challenged the Delhi High Court order. 
 
 Correspondents say although the law has rarely - if ever - been used to prosecute anyone for consensual sex, it has often been used by the police to harass homosexuals. 
 
 Also, in deeply conservative India, homosexuality is a taboo and many people still regard same-sex relationships as illegitimate.
– India's supreme court yesterday ruled to reinstate a colonial-era law that makes gay sex illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in jail—and few actually expected that outcome. Protesters gathered in Delhi last night, armed with rainbow flags and banners reading "I am gay, punish me," and "My love is not a crime," reports the Guardian. Fueling some of the outrage: surprise. Activists had anticipated that the court—known for its "broadly progressive judgments" that tend to favor the "poor and marginalized"—would simply approve the 2009 court ruling that repealed the more than century-old gay sex ban. And it's unclear whether the government will step in. Though the Guardian explains that the ruling party has only "limited political capital," which few think it'll spend on gay rights, Law Minister Kapil Sibal tells the BBC that "all options are being considered" to reinstate the 2009 ruling. And momentum is building, with UN human rights chief Navi Pillay today issuing a statement blasting yesterday's ruling as violating "the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified." The move "represents a significant step backwards for India and a blow for human rights," she said. What she'd like to see, per Reuters: the case reheard.