SG Mehta: Social implications, return it to Parliament to decide.
CJI DYChandrachud: Going by this, we will have to reconsider entire line of judgement from Maneka Gandhi.
SG Mehta: Not supporting judgement on abortion rights, don't agree with it either. It's about returning power to people. Only saying that this must be decided by Parliament.
CJI DYChandrachud: Point taken, but don't rely on Dobbs.
SG Mehta relies on Dobbs.
CJI DYChandrachud: Principle of limitations well-settled. But if you are relying on Dobbs to support...we have gone far beyond that. Dobbs held that women have no bodily autonomy. Long debunked this.
SG Mehta relies on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia judgement in which CJI YV Chandrachud had written about limitations of the court.
"On a lighter note, Chief Justice Chandrachud may say this now."
SG Mehta relies on dissent by Justice Holmes blaming majority for becoming a 'super legislature' in Lochner v New York.
"Very important dissent. This court should not attempt to substitute the legislature's wisdom with its own."
SG Mehta: We cannot transplant to Indian context, principles that took birth in foreign soil without extensive consideration. No two Constitutions are alike.
SG Mehta: Ultimately societal acceptance is one of the considerations of recognition of any union. I will read a beautiful passage from American SC which says more harm to LGBTQIA+ would come if it is forced...
SG Mehta: Marriage is a sociolegal institution, its recognition is necessarily a matter of legislative policy.
SG Mehta: For millions of years, marriage has been recognised by religions as union between heterosexual persons. This has subsequently been codified in statute...procreation major purpose. (Reads from submission)
SG Mehta: No prohibition against marriage. You are asked to confer legal status on certain marriage...Marriage being a legal institution under religions. Not on morality, though that would be an imp consideration.