Same-Sex Marriage Case Judgment : Live Updates From Supreme Court

Justice Bhat : The judgment of CJI propounded a theory of a unified thread of rights and how lack of recognition violated rights. However, when the law is silence, Article 19(1)(a) does not compel the State to enact a law to facilitate that expression.

Justice Ravindra Bhat: There cannot be an unqualified right to marry which is to be treated as a fundamental right. We agree with the CJI on this

Justice Bhat : If it is agreed that marriage is a social institution, does it follow that any section of society which wishes for the creation of a like institution, can seek relief by court intervention?

Justice Bhat : While we agree that there is a right to relationship, we squarely recognize that it falls within Article 21. It includes the right to choose a partner and intimacy. They are like all citizens entitled to enjoy their right without hindrance.

Justice Bhat : This is not a case where the Court can require the State to create a legal status. Recognition for Civil union cannot exist in the absence of a legislation. Creation of an institution depends on State action which is sought to be compelled through the agency of the Court.

Justice Bhat : This Court has recognized that marriage is a social institution. Marriage as an institution precedes State. This implies that marriage structure exists regardless of the State. Terms of marriage are independent of the State, and its sources are external.

Justice Ravindra Bhat : The Court's intervention in the decisions cited by petitioners were instances of the Court protecting them from violence, based on State's duty to protect citizen's right...other instances like Navtej Johar were about provisions which criminalised acts..

Justice Ravindra Bhat : We do not particularly subscribe to the views of CJI on democratising intimate spaces...these outcomes were brought by legislative acts.

Justice Ravindra Bhat : Role of legislature has been to be act as a codifier of customs and wherever necessary intervene in furtherance of Article 14 and 15(3) to enact laws.

Justice Bhat : We had the benefit of perusing the concurring opinion of Justice Narasimha. We endorse them fully.