Same Sex Marriage- Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing- DAY-3 LIVE UPDATES

Justice Bhat: So used in a constitutional sense, it only provides a framework. That framework is broad enough to assimilate later developments.

Justice Bhat What you're propounding is- this provided a framework but that framework is that of the concept of marriage. And the concept of marriage transcends temporary understanding, it's an evolving dynamic.

Singhvi: Let me put it very bluntly. When you enacted the law, in the debate in the parliament, you may not have homosexuals in your mind. You may not have considered them.

CJI DY Chandrachud: And that makes no difference.

CJI DY Chandrachud: And by decriminalizing homosexuality, we have not just recognised treating relationships between consenting adults of the same gender but we've also recognised that people who are of same sex would even be in stable relationships.

Justice Bhat: So this was an all-enfolding kind of legislation.

CJI DY Chandrachud: And in last 69 years, our law has really evolved. When you decriminalize homosexuality, you also realise that these are not one-off relationships, these are also stable relationships.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Your principle premise is that when the legislation was enacted in 1954, the object of the legislation was to provide a form of matrimony for people who are not falling back on their personal laws.

CJI DY Chandrachud: So you're asking us to read into the statute the expression "spouses" for man and woman.

CJI DY Chandrachud: Here, you said that you're leading us on the part of statutory interpretation.

Singhvi: Statutory interpretation, not based on text, not based on original intention, not based on purposive theological intention...

Singhvi: If your lordships found that in SMA, the underlying thrust is not this, then your lordships goes one way. And if you find that the underlying thrust of SMA does not exclude a same sex couple- that means...

Singhvi: The first test your lordships is asking me is intra legislation. To that the answer is if there is a prohibition.

Justice Bhat: How can we confine to that concept? That if there is a prohibition then only we say it should go back to the legislative drawing board?