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

CJI DY Chandrachud: If we declare their sexual identity, then the court may also then have to contemplate what are the rights concomitant to...

Sibal: I'm coming to that.

Sibal: Just as you can't deal with transgenders in the same class as same sex- you'll have to have separate regimes.

Sibal: Will you strike it down? You won't. That's the answer to the question. 14 requires equals being treated equally.

Sibal: Assume that the parliament was to pass a law tomorrow in respect of same sex unions. What if that law is challenged saying that you're treating equals unequally.

Sibal: If you base it on choice it becomes difficult. If you base it on equality, it becomes even more difficult.

Sibal: Choice by itself is a slippery slope because it's elastic.

Justice Bhat: If three people want to live together, there are societies with polyandrous relationships...

Sibal: But is it recognised in law? There's nothing wrong with it, I'm not being moralistic.

Justice Bhat: Because it's inherent to order.

Sibal: Yes. Let's say three of us want to live together and marry. There's nothing wrong with it conceptually. Is it a marriage then?

Sibal: Why can't you marry your son's widow? It has nothing to do with blood relations. Because it has something to do with standards which the state recognises.

Sibal: If you look at the institution of marriage as an organic evolution of custom, you will realise that its roots are in the concept of societal standards and morality.

Sibal: Society recognises it and gives it a name. You don't need a constitution for that. It's an inalienable right. If you want to equate it to a heterosexual union, you need all the elements which go in heterosexual union being recognised.