Regardless of what one’s philosophy happens to be on the subject of same gender sodomy, no rational person can deny that the India Supreme Court fully comprehends and appreciates the precepts of power separation and judicial constraints.
The India Supreme Court respects the fact that the court must rule within the context of existing law, whether or not it agrees with the law. Like our Virginia Phillips, who perpetrated an attempt to circumvent the repeal process, the lower court in India exceeded judicial authority; like Phillips, it presumed to legislate, which is the exclusive domain of the legislature; there, the Parliament; here the Congress.
This is not to say that the United States Supreme Court does not get it; but our court is rife with hubris and disdain for the rule of law; and its members are accountable only to each other. It substitutes convoluted contortions of the fifth and fourteenth amendments where there is otherwise no constitutional context to support its ruling. It is ludicrous to attribute 5-4 decisions to partisanship when they clearly portend rulings, whose constitutionality is dubious, at best.
The signers of the Constitution left no doubt that they intended a wall of separation should exist between the powers (http://constitutionus.com/#transmitcongress). The Supreme Court is not intended to be an alternative to the legislative process. The role of the court is not to confer dignity, as Anthony Kennedy seems to believe; nor, to determine obsolescence as Ruth Bader-Ginsburg seems to think (http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/second-amendment-outdated-justice-ginsburg-says/).
Each time the court exceeds its Constitutional authority; presuming to legislate by writing rulings without Constitutional foundation; and the Congress fails to act, the country’s constitutional foundation is eroded.
Legislation is a deliberative, sometimes tedious process. Regarding any court as empowered to expedite that process or any court ruling as superseding congressional legislation is an egregious contravention of the Constitution.
India’s court was correct to defer to the Parliament. They get it; we do not.