AG: The trigger point in that report was about the Khaap Panchayat and impediment in freedom of marriage.
AG refers to the Law Commission's report.
AG: It doesn't mean that court will not deliberate on this subject but it's important to know where the lines will be drawn...The other day your lordships were referring to the 242 law commission report- I was a member of that commission. Even in that report, we had probably thought about this issue and there is a statement on why the definition of marriage may not be enlarged.
AG: Certain principles of interpretations, which seem to be on evolving...even looking at the commonwealth perspectives, we see wide range in New Zealand approach and English approach.
AG: It's not that we have a universal perspective on aspects of matter on which there is no disagreement.
AG: The court should not alter fundamentally the basic text of a statute. We saw how vaccum was filled in Vishakha, we can see how solution is reached. So suggestions by government can be looked at.
AG: It's not that we have a universal perspective on aspects of matter on which there is no disagreement.
AG: The court should not alter fundamentally the basic text of a statute. We saw how vaccum was filled in Vishakha, we can see how solution is reached. So suggestions by government can be looked at.
AG: Certain principles of interpretations, which seem to be on evolving...even looking at the commonwealth perspectives, we see wide range in New Zealand approach and English approach.
AG: At one level the court is engaged in a noble task. On a different level, it is a matter where court engagement, or engagement of counsel, howsoever enlightened we are or deeply committed to it, the subject calls for a practical outcomes, an incremental approach.
Attorney General R Venkatramani begins his submissions.
AG: I wish to convey my deep appreciation for petitioners for deep insights I received on a subject like this.
SG Mehta: This is a reasonable classification.
SG Mehta provides the bench with some judgements.
SG Mehta: I received a phone from Mr Sibal this morning. Today he is a little under the weather so his presence may be dispensed with.
CJI DY Chandrachud: The argument is of the anti discrimination principle. They say that marriage is a vital institution, same sex couples are entitled same right to dignity, and not recognising that relationship would deprive them of societal benefits attached to marriage.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Their argument is not that state is duty bound to recognise all relationships. Their contention is that by not recognising same sex marriage, the state is acting in a discriminatory way.