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

Sr Adv Anand Grover: It's a constitutional issue because runaway couples both heterosexual and homosexual..

CJI DY Chandrachud: It's an important social issue, not necessarily a constitutional issue for a constitution bench.

CJI DY Chandrachud: That issue is not sui generis to same sex couples. According to you, the right to marry even for a heterosexual couple is elusory when they have to give notice. That is not connected with the issue whether same sex couples have a right to marry.

CJI DY Chandrachud: It's not a five judge issue. It's a simple issue.

Ramachandran: As far as our petitions are concerned, the right to marry, we contend, would be elusory unless the notice provisions go.

Counsel: Your lordships indicated in the morning that you may de-tag some matters.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Just that matter about notice provision. That is capable of being handled by any other bench. Issue applies equally to heterosexual & same sex couples.

The bench rises for lunch.

SG Mehta: Ghaidan was not dealing with an interpretation which is concerned with several statutes. Please now see the difference in power available to the court in UK and India.

SG Mehta: The reliance on Ghaidan (landmark UK judgment on queer rights) is misplaced, it is without giving the background and context.

SG Mehta: As I pointed out yesterday, wherever other legislative bodies have done it they have suitably amended other allied laws as well.

SG Mehta: Maybe if the parliament considers appropriate, the parliament may in its wisdom provide for a comprehensive legislature.

SG Mehta: Illustrative list is 150 sections of various other statutes. Therefore my lords may not give meaning which creates complications rather than solving the problem.