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

CJI DY Chandrachud: We have petitions specifically challenging this.

Singhvi: Merely because it's common to other segment...

SG Mehta: The notice argument is to be dealt with seperately.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Mr Singhvi, keep it aside because we haven't heard the others.

Singhvi: Then the "scare" argument - oh my lords how will you deal? The workability argument- I'll deal with that too. And then the notice argument.

Dr AM Singhvi (in his rejoinder): This whole excessive to the point of being wrong emphasis on legislative intent- I'll deal with this.

SG Mehta: We've written letters to the state governments. There are 7 responses from Manipur, AP, UP, Maharashtra, Assam, Sikkim, and Rajasthan. Rajasthan takes the position that we've examined this and we oppose to the position of petitioners. Rest say this needs debate.

SG Mehta: Whenever a declaration is made by legislature, legislature has the power to regulate the fall out. Your lordships would not be able to foresee and thereafter deal with the fall out.

Justice Bhat: What I'm hinting towards is as a constitutional court, we recognise only a state of affairs and draw the limit there.

Justice Bhat: That is why the content of declaration is important. You're all presuming that declaration will be in form of a writ- grant this or that. This is what we're accustomed to.

Justice Bhat: That is that priest's fundamental right to follow his conscience and faith.

SG Mehta: Where does his conscience stops and where does that duty begin?

SG Mehta: Priest says that as per my religion only man and woman can perform that ritual and i won't be party to this. Would he not be in contempt of declaration of this court?