Same-Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality- Supreme Court Hearing- LIVE UPDATES - DAY-9

Singhvi: Please hear my three points and then you can decide.

1. A constitution compliant reading of the SMA is within bounds of legitimate statutory interpretation.

Justice Kaul: What is being suggested to you is let the bench rule on the principal aspect- are you entitled to declaration of right to marry or not. It's not as if you're shut out from arguing that.

Singhvi: The vulnerability, the practical operation, the invitation to violence- will make that right 50-70% illusory.

Singhvi: I bow down that point of notice and objection arises only if your lordships hold me eligible under SMA. However, if your lordships so hold the first part, the other is inextricably intertwined. Without it, much of my right is hollow.

Justice Kohli: We might be putting the cart before the horse.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Otherwise the notice provision doesn't apply to same sex couples at all. Your challenge to S 7 and 10 has to be deferred to a point when we have ruled on legality of same sex marriage.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Your argument in the challenge to notice provisions postulates a verdict in your favour that there is a right to marriage under the SMA.

Singhvi: I argued for almost half an hour on this. The only issue is that your lordships have not heard them (heterosexual couples) so you can hear them briefly.

Justice Bhat: There is no reference order per se. Order for implicit on this premise that the claim for same sex marriage was being considered. Nobody pointed out nittigritties of this. So to stand up and say we've been heard, insisting we must be heard is not up to you

Singhvi: I raised and argued it fully. Your lordships observed that we'll take a call later.