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

Singhvi: There are two ways of looking at this. One is that we challenge it on the ground of unconstitutionality- as we're doing the notice and objection period clause. 

Justice Bhat: Two points- first is how you make it consistent with the convention. Second is, they abandon the purposive construction and the textual and the intention based...

Singhvi: So your lordships ultimate guidestar is- intention of statute, no; text of statute, no; parliamentary overall purposive understanding, no; but the ability to achieve a convention compliant result. 

Singhvi: So intention, statutory text, and now we have a third test- "important fundamental rights" involved.

Singhvi: Second thing which is not determinative is statutory text. It's quite interesting that an English court is saying this. 

Singhvi: "Parliamentary intention is not the touchstone"- this is another red herring which your lordships may have to deal with in the present case.

Singhvi: Now I turn to the article on being constitutionally compliant and treaty compliant- it's one of the best articles on interpretation.

Singhvi: Yes, when you have a particular paradigm applying to heterosexual group, your lordships will find it discriminatory not to apply the same to homosexual groups.

Singhvi cites a judgement.

CJI: Dr Singhvi, this was a case where the act squarely applied to unmarried relationships. The principle was that if the act applies to unmarried Heterosexual relations, there is no basis to exclude unmarried relations amongst homosexuals.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi begins his arguments for the day.