SG Mehta: The argument was to cumulate both- that would be necessarily rewriting. Second, would your lordships read an enactment in a fashion which will apply differently to one class- the heterosexual and differently to homosexual, same sex- that class.
SG Mehta: The petitioners have prayed to rewrite and restructure the SMA to suit a particular class of people.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Yes, let's see the SMA.
SG Mehta: First let's see S2(a)- degrees of prohibited relationships.
SG Mehta: I wish to show that it perhaps may be an option to not go into the personal laws while dealing with SMA.
CJI DY Chandrachud: That you can show. Just don't argue on the merits of that. Because we're not hearing the other side on it too.
CJI DY Chandrachud: The challenge to the notice provisions in SMA, if that challenge is as a standalone prayer, we can assign that to a two judge bench. Have a junior check if it is a standalone prayer. It applies to heterosexuals too.
Justice Kaul: Mr Solicitor, we had indicated the broad scope of what will be argued. That should restrict the arguments of everyone.
The bench greets Justice SK Kaul a good morning as he is sitting virtually for the constitution bench.