Same Sex Marriage- Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing- DAY-3 LIVE UPDATES

Singhvi: It is true that rape is a crime even by a woman on a man in France. Those are special cases. Today your lordships issue is can you move forward with these kinds of obstructions?

Singhvi: Ofcourse it has been expanded by the Verma committee to meet other forms. But otherwise it is non consensual penile vaginal penetration.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Why can't we apply that to a homosexual couple?

Singhvi: It's a criminal offence which is being defined "non consensual penile vaginal penetration".

Singhvi: Then some provisions which may not create any issues- which are only created for and applicable to heterosexual couples- such as 27(1)(a). You cannot have a system which applies uniformly to everybody, like rape.

Singhvi: The next point is that your lordships will keep in mind that I am focusing on the discriminatory parts of the provisions. We're not challenging or interpreting all provisions. We're challenging the discriminatory portions of gendered provisions.

Singhvi: The next question which may arise is what about the trans categories. My submission would be that in 99% trans categories your lordships is able to slot the person as per the gender which he/she professes.

Singhvi: There is a question concerning age. The simple and the correct solution is that whichever of the same sex couple is involved, that age will apply.

Dr Singhvi takes the court through other judgments.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Your argument is that the institution of marriage in itself is so very important that denying it to same sex couple would be contrary to fundamental rights.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Is the relationship between a man and a woman so fundamental to our law and SMA that for us to comprehend that it would also include a relationship between a same sex couple would be completely redoing the tapestry of the legislation?