Dwivedi: When we say that I take you as a husband or wife, you want us to say that i take you as a spouse.
CJI DY Chandrachud: This is not your strongest point.
Dwivedi: It is!
CJI DY Chandrachud: Do you mean to say, and we're just testing the argument here, that the dignity of the relationship between a heterosexual husband and wife would be affected by granting recognition to a same sex couple?
Dwivedi: Not that.
Dwivedi: Is it a simple substitution? You set up your claim based on choice, autonomy, dignity etc. Is there not dignity for heterosexual?
CJI DY Chandrachud: How is the dignity of heterosexuals affected?
Dwivedi: Because husband and wife relationship is a meaningful relationship since antiquity.
Dwivedi: I want your lordships to look at Section 4. Spouse is a flexible word grammatically. But in the context of the act spouse means husband or wife. The context of this act is heterosexual, everyone agrees to that.
Dwivedi: Now Mr SG has taken your lordships to the SMA and various cases on why this cannot be done and why it is too drastic.
Dwivedi: Then there was a suggestion that 99% transgenders can be accommodated with women.
Dwivedi: Mr Rohatgi said read husband and wife as spouse, man and woman as person and operate both schedules at the end of the act prescribing prohibited degrees.
Dwivedi: Second, this is a demand for equation, not simpliciter right to marriage, but marriage at par with heterosexuals. Is there a fundamental right to marry? To recognition of marriage? Is there fundamental right to equation/ equality in matter of marriage with heterosexual
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi: There is an omnibus demand- same sex, intersex, transgenders- all want an equation with heterosexual marriage and are asking you to amend the SMA.
The bench has risen for lunch.