Abstract:
In Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General [2013] 3 SLR 118, the High Court of Singapore upheld an Art 12 challenge against s 377A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The court held that there was a complete coincidence between the differentia underlying the classification prescribed by s 377A and the legislative purpose of the impugned provision as established in 1938, and the purpose of the law was not illegitimate. In this commentary, the author explains why s 377A cannot be upheld on the basis advanced by the learned judge.