Same Sex Marriage- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-6-LIVE UPDATES

CJI DY Chandrachud: In the case of a heterosexual couple, the fact that one of the spouses cannot procreate doesn't render that an invalid marriage. Suppose the girl has had a hysterectomy when she was a child - she can still have a marriage.

CJI DY Chandrachud: That may or may not be. Emphasis in that provision is not so much on procreation as it is on mental illness. 

SG Mehta refers to provisions pertaining to conditions of solemnisation of marriage and highlights provisions concerning persons unfit of mind and "procreation".

SG Mehta: Procreation necessarily means union between man and woman.

SG Mehta: This full blood will have inevitable impact of succession.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Then you see Section 3g of Hindu Marriage Act.

SG Mehta: Take it from me, Hindu Marriage Act will apply.

SG Mehta: See the definition of full blood and half blood...we can never reconcile this provision - it says that one man has given birth to a child with a biological woman. Marriage between lesbians- that can't be read because it wouldn't be full blood.

CJI DY Chandrachud: The state can regulate relationships. A parent may say that they can control their child but state can say you have to send them to school. 

SG Mehta: When your lordships were hearing Navtej, all these arguments were made. The central government said we leave it to the wisdom of the court but added that this has nothing to do with future right of marriage, inheritance.

SG Mehta: The state can regulate relationships if the state feels that it is in legitimate interest to do so. Therefore, marriage was not a regulated relationship. But state in its legislative policy wisdom decided that we will regulate and we can regulate only when we recognise.

Justice Bhat: There are certain interests of the state which are legitimate.

SG Mehta: State has no business to regulate social personal relationships. It is only in exceptional cases...

Justice Bhat: But these are universal rules. As long as these were not codified, they were accepted. That was the law, the norm. If you're building up to this and saying there is a state interest in this relationship, one can understand.