Same-Sex Marriage- Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing -DAY-5

SG Mehta: Would it prudent or possible for this court to come up with regulations, even if it were to confer them with legal right to marry? There are 101 diff contingencies.

Continues outlining different gender identities.

SG Mehta takes court through different genders.

CJI DYChandrachud: What is the source of this table?

SG: Footnote specifies.

SG Mehta takes court through what each letter in LGBTQIA+ abbreviation means.

"We don't look into what '+' means. There are 72 shades or variation. It needs to be assessed how this court proposes to deal with all these variations."

SG Mehta: ...Would have effect on heterosexual couples because SMA largely for interfaith heterosexual couples...This court cannot use different lens for heterosexual couples, & another for non-heterosexual couples.

SG Mehta: ...Cannot substitute legislative intent which is otherwise manifest, cannot read words of larger amplitude in place of words of smaller amplitude (i.e., persons instead of 'man'/'male'/'woman'/'female').

SG Mehta: What petitioners are now seeking to achieve was consciously omitted in Special Marriage Act. This exercise would be restrained by four fundamental principles - cannot change character of law...

SG Mehta: Very heart of SMA is recognition of marriage between conventional man and conventional woman. Their request is to rewrite this to suit their circumstances. I am not opposed, but this can only be done by Parliament.

SG Mehta: Only Parliament can envision several situations that may arise & provide for its regulation. It would be impossible for the court to conceive of all situations.

SG Mehta: Let's come next to privacy. There are exceptions, such as impotence, which is a ground for divorce...very personal & private. Once legislative recognition given to particular form of union, comes with several regulations.

SG Tushar Mehta: Our laws also conventionally recognise 'man' & 'woman'. I know diff between gender & sex, sexual orientation & gender identity. I am talking about law as it defines. Should any change not be legislature's domain?