Same-Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality- Supreme Court Hearing- LIVE UPDATES - DAY-9

Singhvi: This differentiation is based solely on ascriptive characteristics. It's exclusion must be struck down. 

Singhvi: Marriage as a legal institution needs my access on equal terms as heterosexual couples. My stoppage of access and not on equal terms is my violation of 14 and 15.

Singhvi: If you continue to read SMA to exclude same sex couples, then SMA as a legal proposition is unconstitutional under 14,19,21.

Singhvi: If you continue to read SMA to exclude same sex couples, then SMA as a legal proposition is unconstitutional under 14,19,21.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Can we go down that far and say that look the very social institution of marriage as including a relationship only between a man and woman is unconstitutional? Even you won't take it that far

Singhvi: Call it reading up, I have no problem.

CJI DY Chandrachud: What you would then seek is expansion by the court of the notion of marriage so as to include class other than heterosexuals. That's the problem. The court in process of reading down would read down a statute would expanse the statute.

CJI DY Chandrachud: What you would then seek is expansion by the court of the notion of marriage so as to include class other than heterosexuals. That's the problem. The court in process of reading down would read down a statute would expanse the statute.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Even if you were compelled to challenge its validity, that would be postulated on the hypothesis that any statutory recognition of marriage as being confined to heterosexual man and woman is unconstitutional.

Singhvi: Third, I'm saying that reading down will validate the law. I don't wanna change any other part of law. Why am I compelled to challenge its validity?