There are some strange things about this Supreme Court decision on Section 377. One of them is that Supreme Court Justice Singhvi retired after announcing the decision. Another is that the court's verdict claims that its decision was based on a respect for the jurisdiction of parliament, which the court claimed should be the one to repeal the law, rather than relying upon the Delhi Court to have struck it down.
When the govt itself through the Attorney General was representing the decriminalization side of the debate, then why would the Supreme Court feel concern that the Delhi High Court was in danger of being in conflict with the parliament? That makes no sense. If anything, the Supreme Court of India has been extremely activist in confronting the parliament, relative to other courts around the world. So how did the court come up with its reasoning?
Anytime justices retire immediately after rendering a politically sensitive decision, I feel suspicious about it.