Same-Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality- Supreme Court Hearing- LIVE UPDATES - DAY 8

Sibal: The question then arises- is the sexual union a marriage? If its akin to a marriage is it founded in any provision of the constitution? And for it to result in rights- it can only be done through recognition by state.

Sibal: First you have to decide, are they a separate sexual identity? In the ultimate analysis my answer will be yes. Next, should they be recognised by the State? The answer is not through a declaration.

Sibal: What you're today deciding are two things- sexual unions and recognition by the state of sexual unions. None of these issues were looked upon, decided etc in either of the three judgements.

Sibal: In Navtej, you decided on decriminalisation.

Justice Bhat: Conceptually, you can say that the third one is different because It's decriminalisation.

Sibal: Let's go to the heart of the matter. In NALSA, your lordships decided sexual identity, nothing more than that- of transgenders. In the privacy judgement, your lordships decided on contours of privacy- in private and public space.

Justice Narasimha: Parliament can overrule a declaration also, no?

Sibal: No, no. Your lordships know that once your lordships have declared, parliament cannot overrule it.

Sibal: That is something your lordships should be cautious about, nothing more than that.

Sibal: A declaration by your lordships will close the debate in parliament. There will be no scope of debate in parliament once you declare that one, it's a fundamental right; two, it has to be recognised.

Sibal: Therefore, a declaration by itself on the premise that parliament is not likely to pass laws is a wrong step forward.

Sibal: Any law of this nature which is pursuant to a tectonic shift in societal values requires public discourse which includes discourse inside Parliament, in families, society.