A/HRC/WG.6/1/IND/4 page 16 77. India noted that they do maintain statistics with regard to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and that these statistics are in the public domain. 78. In relation to a question by the Republic of Korea on the displacement of tribal people from forest lands, India noted that based on a Supreme Court decision, no land can be diverted from forest use, without prior approval and there can be no displacement unless there is a comprehensive proposal to resettle the tribes as part of the project. This had been the position in regard to implementation of mining projects in Orissa as well. 79. India noted that some states have passed anti-conversion acts to check and regulate forced conversions. 80. Nigeria mentioned enforced disappearances and India noted that it had signed the Convention on the Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance on the day it opened for signature last year and that the process of ratification was now under way. 81. With reference to Latvia and Switzerland’s question on a standing invitation for special procedures, India stated that it could not agree to standing invitations, but it had been extremely open and had extended invitations whenever approached. India believed that as a developing country with limited capacities, it needed to properly prepare for such visits for which sufficient notice is required. 82. In relation to a question from the Syrian Arab Republic on the role of the judiciary in protecting human rights, India noted that the judiciary is the sentinel and watchdog of human rights in India. The courts in India including the Supreme Court and the High Courts are easily accessible to the ordinary people and have acted even on the basis of information received on a post card from a person under detention. 83. India noted, in response to Egypt’s question on the Right to Information Act, that the Act is one of the greatest achievements in the legislative history so far. The fact that the government and legislature decided to ‘expose themselves’ under the Act is by itself a great check on their working. 84. Regarding Sweden’s comments on homosexual conduct, India noted that under Section 377 of the 1860 Indian Penal Code, the concept of sexual offences “against the order of nature” was introduced. This was essentially a Western concept, which has remained over the years. The concept of homosexuality itself does not find a mention in the Indian Penal Code and it can be a matter of debate whether it is “against the order of nature”. An NGO had filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for declaring Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. The High Court’s judgment turning down the petition was challenged in the Supreme Court which has returned it to the High Court for reconsideration. The matter was referred to the Law Commission of India, which took the view that Indian society does not currently accept homosexuality as an acceptable form of behaviour. However, the matter is under the consideration of the courts in India. 85. In conclusion, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of India, H.E. Mr. Swashpawan Singh, thanked everyone for their presence and constructive participation in the free and frank dialogue. India stated that it had tremendously benefited from the discussion which provided a unique opportunity to know how India’s efforts for the realisation of human rights were viewed and assessed by international community. It was satisfying to note that there was a positive recognition of India’s efforts and that many initiatives launched by India are viewed as examples of best practices. India remained conscious of the challenges and was committed to persevere diligently within the parameters of its Constitution. India stated that it has always demonstrated its openness