Justice Bhat: There was no Hindu code and yet the incidents of marriage and effects of marriage were given across provisions. Suppose you're working and you have hard earned money of gratuity and there is no provision to enable the heirs to get it
CJI DY Chandrachud: But let's go step by step. Once you recognise that there is a right to cohabit, then it is the obligation of the state that all social impact of cohabitation has legal recognition.
Justice Kohli: What you're saying is that there could be a right to cohabit and give it a name of relationship which is sanctified but that will have no obligations on state to recognise it statutorily.
CJI DY Chandrachud: There's no bar in our law to having any form of ceremony. The question is about legal recognition.
SG Mehta: Yes. In Gujarat, one lady married herself recently.
Justice Bhat: Profound
SG: Spritually very profound but i don't know...
CJI DY Chandrachud: In other words, suppose a same sex couple says that we're inviting a group of 25 friends and we will have a marriage ceremony. In law, there is no prohibition. You also agreed to that. Somebody may have reception, ceremony
CJI DY Chandrachud: Can we tighten up your submission by saying that when you say that there is no fundamental right to seek recognition of that relationship as marriage or in any other name- can we recast it as legal recognition?
SG: Yes, legal recognition.
SG Mehta: Right to love or cohabit or choose a partner is there but there is no fundamental right to seek recognition of that relationship as marriage.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Let's complete the hearings first. Mr SG is on his legs. Mr SG, wrap up quickly...
Justice Bhat: Yes Mr Grover but even 19(1)(a)- Shreya Singhal and many of these judgments were not 5 judge bench judgements.
Grover: Right to privacy is affected. They are constitutional issues. It is eminent that this bench decides...19(1)(a) and 21 we're raising.