Sr Adv Geeta Luthra: We have challenged in addition other two secular legislations, many of us have- the Foreign Marriage Act and the Citizenship Act.
Justice Kaul: You say you don't want to touch personal law. Then the argument is limited. So can we in SMA, read "person" and leave everything else for a better time?
Singhvi: The notice issue in SMA shall be struck down.
CJI DY Chandrachud: The notice issue exists in heterosexual marriages too.
Singhvi: Yes and Sections 5-10 have the opposite effect than intended.
Singhvi: All of this can be started by SMA. We're not arguing personal laws at all. Then about state intervention - Your lordships for the first batch is interpreting SMA.
Singhvi: There is LGBTQIA++. This "++" has a whole spectrum of hues and colours. Now if your lordships were to hold same person marriage, your lordships doesn't mean to limit to same sex. So the correct formulation should be "2 consenting adults along bodily gender & sex spectrum
Singhvi: The second category is gender- masculine and feminine. So a male body can be imbued by female psychological instincts and vice versa.
Singhvi: One is sex based, which must includes between man and woman there is a whole range of combination of persons with special biological features. It's not only man and woman.
Singhvi: Adoption according to me is crucial. But your lordships will guard against holding against left hand that marriage of same sex persons is valid. And on the right hand it would be empty.
Singhvi: Your lordships may need to travel a little ahead. These are secular incidents of daily life, as my learned friend said. They involve nothing beyond that. Now there are larger issues which you may leave open. I say even those can be covered by marriage.
Singhv: There is two categories of consequences- one is the minor or major secular consequence of marriage. In the event your lordships hold marriage to be this way or that way, not creating an empty shelf, it has to have consequential benefits.