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

Justice Bhat: No, look at social processes. It was as intensely contested, as intensely "shocking" or "blasphemous"...

Sibal: But the issue was not that all. That's all I'm saying.

Sibal: They relied on Obergefell and Loving. Obergefell was payment for parental care and loving was inter racial- from these two judgements they extracted the principle. Both are irrelevant. 

Justice Bhat: So you're saying is that what is being claimed is a legislation.

CJI DY Chandrachud: A legislative recognition. So your submission is okay go ahead and marry but don't insist on legislature to enact laws.

Sibal: That's precisely why we have the constitution. In an orderly society, you need the rules of the game to be played out on certain fundamentals.

Justice Bhat: If you take it slightly wider in terms of the concentric circle - the largest circle, the broadest argument is that there is no fundamental right to claim any legislation.

Sibal: It cannot be struck down because different procedures will have to be evolved in the unique context of same sex unions.

Sibal: For a moment assume that parliament makes a law only with reference to LGBTQIA+ unions as it has for the transgender community. Would such a law be struck down on the ground that there can be no separate law? It cannot be struck down.

Sibal: The heart of the issue is recognition.

Sibal: You can marry. Problem is not that. You can call it anything. Marriage is a union of people, it is inalienable - i have the right to be with anyone. It's the recognition which matters.

Justice Bhat: In the absence of an inter faith marriage law, what you're saying, could you have gone and said that I am not enabled to marry?