SG Mehta: If one can, why not two? I understand the concern.
Justice Bhat: If there are two, both have to be recognised. It can't be that one relates to one and other relates to other. So both children have to be of both parents.
CJI DY Chandrachud: And you don't have to go as far as marriage in this as well. We don't have to go for an all out approach, atleast at this stage of the development of our social ethos. Should that child not have the benefit of the cohabitation of people whose home he resides?
CJI DY Chandrachud: So we'll be happy to get that kind of thing...
SG Mehta: I'd undertake that.
CJI DY Chandrachud: We want some element of a broad sense of coalition. Because we're also conscious about the fact that there is so much that representative democracy should also achieve in our country.
Justice Bhat: So what you're saying in essence is- they have a right to associate themselves. In that sense, association also means exclusion- in that relationship there is no other person.
SG Mehta: If there are other issues or concerns, they can be addressed on the government's side.
Justice Bhat: You may or may not call it marriage but some label is necessary.
SG Mehta: Maybe... it's loud thinking but in principle, at the outset, as an officer of the court- except any legal recognition of this form of cohabitation, either as a marriage or as other thing...
CJI DY Chandrachud: From that point of view, we would be more than willing to have the government make a statement before us. You have ministries dedicated for this purpose- social justice and empowerment, ministry for women and child development.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Can these couples not have a joint bank account? Nomination in insurance?
SG Mehta: These are all human concerns which I also share and the government also shares. We must find a solution to this.
Justice Bhat: If recognition is framed in such a manner that it is acting as an active barrier for this kind of relationship, what is the remedy?