Same Sex Marriage- Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing-DAY-2- LIVE UPDATES

Justice Bhat: Playing the devil's advocate, last question, what prevents the state to protect you today? Because it is decriminalized?

Justice Bhat: If that's the argument, there's nothing wrong with it.

Singhvi: Assuming your lordships puts me on the right side of the law, first consequence is that I'm entitled to seek state protection against invasion.

Justice Bhat: You're wanting us to strike another path and say that you give us this privilege that the State is bound to protect us.

Justice Bhat: The value that you place in fundamental rights- one takes it as the same value. It's an indivisible value. Right to free speech for instance, right to association, and all those rights- you can't privilege one over the other.

Justice Bhat: But those groups will continue operating the way they are. Unless what you're saying is that the value of this right is such that the state is under an obligation to protect you.

Singhvi: Your lordships may not eliminate murder but your lordships will say murder is wrong. Once you declare this, I'll be in the right side of law.

Singhvi: Assuming that your lordships state that same sex marriage is valid. The legalisation of same sex marriage, along with consequences, is a very big victory. 

Singhvi: Vigilante groups...

Justice Bhat: The point is a declaration of marriage, or the relief you seek, how will that per se result in your protection? 

Singhvi: Vigilante groups...

Justice Bhat: The point is a declaration of marriage, or the relief you seek, how will that per se result in your protection? 

Justice Bhat: What will be examples of that?

Singhvi: One obvious example is notice and objection regime.