...Spinning our wheels here, Kapil; simply put 'unjust' as per what of your definitions??? Unjust because now folks are gonna be more comfy in their bedrooms? Or because we have a gay beaten up, locked away and black-mailed everyday in India? [I seriously doubt if you read of such specific sort of hate-crimes particularly in the Indian-subcontinent newspapers, and/or on a daily basis!?!] Then what unjust laws? Because some 80plus or so countries still hold homosexuality illegal and we ...well we want to be, or at least want to sound, progressive then those bloody buggers?
Additionally; Seedy parks and their midnight prowlers, patrons, seedy characters, involved in shady dealings ....I am sure everyone knows that our urban cities are full of it... so okay, get these folks some proper platform and legal rights? Sure...] 
In any case; as I had already mentioned and I am sure you agree - these same 'learned judges' 
of yours surely need to take care of a whole slew of real-time issues, unjust laws (and Police reform) before they light the haystack with a free-for-all in 'their-law-of-the-land' on some lost cause! (I say lost cause because ...also mentioned earlier... because I fear it would do nothing to an average Indian mindset and in a 'land' where even men and women can get beaten up for holding hands in public, I hardly see what this rukus would ultimately achieve...change the thinking of 'folks policing' all this, the bajarang-dals who still beat up women in bars, their mindset maybe, I guess? 
newsflash- We already had laws for them, remember?... but having said that - look, it's a done deal, so for all intent and purposes only making a point AFTER, ...not that your agreeing with me or not, shall change anything in the new law pertaining to section 377 in any case! 
Peace!)
Shailendra, I see 3 main points you have raised- question of "un-just", level of importance and the impact in terms of actual change or ruckus caused. As you said, it is a done deal. Neverthless, this is why I think it is the right deal.
1. Unjust: It is not unjust as per my definitions. It is unjust as per Articles 21,14 and 15 of the Indian constitution (as ruled by the court). We have to accept some definition of justice. There can be lenghty philosophical debates on that, but to cut a long story short, we can accept the Indian constitution given that it is fairly robust. To quote the court further on this matter, "The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracized."..........“In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconception of the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that
discrimination is anit-thesis of equality and it is the recognition of equality that will foster the dignity of every individual.”
I am not sure of the exact number of countries that explicitly allow/disallow it. But I came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
Clearly, the countries where it is manifestly illegal (mostly sub-Saharan African and Islamic theocracies) have not set the ground ablaze in matters of justice. I don't think countries where women are flogged/stoned if they show their faces in public are an example worth emulating atleast as far as justice is concerned. I am sure you'd agree.
No legal rights have been granted to seedy characters and midnight prowlers as part of this judgment. The court explicitly took note of your earlier legitimate concern of child molestation, etc. when it ruled “Section 377 can longer be used to arrest, prosecute or harass homosexuals.
Instead, its application will be limited to cases where the victim is a child or an unwilling adult.”
2. On the issue of importance, it is really a matter of an individual's perspective. I didn't give a damn about this law. Neither did you. But a law-abiding citizen, who became criminal just because of his different sexual orientation must have found it more important than most things. And it is not as if the court showed any over-eagerness in dealing with this case. Original case was filed in 2001 and was thrown out once, until SC asked the HC to hear it on merit. Moreover, courts have their own bureaucracy through which the cases trickle through. It is not as if they sit and decide that okay, this is an important case, let's solve it now.
3. And as for ruckus, that is on everything in India. Let's be clear- the courts didn't
cause the ruckus. They just ruled on a question of law as part of their normal business.
The judge should only take cognizance of the 'justice' element while making a ruling instead of worrying about the ruckus factor. Because in that case, we might as well be ruled by the mob. Similarly, the court can't influence or even bother about changing mindsets. They have done their job. The mindsets will take their time changing. Sati, child marriage, dowry, etc. didn't stop immediately after they were made illegal. But the law was a catalyst for change. Surely, the courts couldn't have thought that why bother since people are going to continue anyways.
