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

Singhvi: My next point is that if you have conditions of marriage and you're requiring an affidavit to be filed that I satisfy all these conditions. And if those conditions are found false, the outside world can challenge - what is the purpose of this prior notice?

Justice Bhat: This was based on patriarchy.

Singhvi: Yes! 

Singhvi: It's the heart of my privacy to decide with whom I associate when, how, after how much time into matrimonial union- be it of the same sex or heterosexual sex.

Singhvi: Which married couple in the heterosexual world has to announce first to the world that we intend to marry? Forget heterosexual but even in personal laws- Parsi Act etc. Why should I? It's my personal decisional autonomy.

Singhvi: My learned friend has filed a reply, it's a constitutional issue. Let me finish. This part is unconstitutional because before a formal entry into a marriage, you're invading my privacy by directing me to declare my intention in public domain for objections to be invited

SG Mehta (referring to the challenge of notice and objection under SMA): This is a different issue. We've not filed a reply.

Singhvi: This is peculiar to the SMA that before I intent to marry you, I must declare this intent publicly and wait.

Singhvi: There are Parsi, Christian, so many other forms of marriages. No other requires a notice of prior intent to marry.

Justice Kohli: Would we like to go that step further to go into this? Because there are several shades.

Singhvi: Yes, your lordships can iron them out. But I'm not raising this.

Singhvi: If this bench was to recognise the issue we're canvassing, your lordships will be recognising marriage between this act.